Chronicle article: Democratic Politics of Techology -- the view from the "public

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

     The following opinion piece is reprinted from _The Chronicle
of Higher Education_, vol. 40, no. 19 (12 January 1994), pp.
B1-B2:


                    Democratizing Technology


                      By Richard E. Sclove


     The Clinton Administration and the U.S. Congress are trying
to promote economic competitiveness by forging an ambitious new
technology agenda.  Measures proposed or already adopted include
support for development of advanced manufacturing technologies,
such as robotics and for a national network of manufacturing
extension centers.  Other measures include new industrial
partnerships for the national weapons laboratories and investing
in "green" technologies and in new infrastructures (such as the
information superhighway, high speed trains, and upgraded roads
and sewage systems).  New technology is seen as the genie that
will enable American companies to prevail in the global
marketplace.


     It's a beguiling vision, but it overlooks a major factor:
democracy.  Few citizens, workers, or communities are being
consulted about technology decisions that their taxes will help
support, decisions that will profoundly affect their lives.


     It _is_ possible to involve citizens in making technology
policy.  Last year, for example, a panel of ordinary Danish
citizens spent several days hearing expert presentations on
genetic manipulation in animal breeding.  After cross-examining
the experts and deliberating among themselves, the citizens
decided that it would be "entirely unacceptable" to genetically
engineer new pets, but ethical to use such methods to develop a
treatment for cancer.


     To organize this type of "consensus conference," the Danish
government's Technology Board selects panels of citizens of
varying backgrounds, and then publicizes their judgments through
the news media, local debates, leaflets, and videos.  Surveys
show that the Danish public and politicians are better informed
on issues addressed this way than are the citizens of other
countries facing similar questions.


     During a recent briefing at the U.S. Office of Technology
Assessment, Norman Vig, a political scientist from Carleton
College argued that consensus conferences represent a promising
model for the United States to use to broaden the range of people
who influence technological decisions.  Universities could
contribute substantially to democratizing technology if such a
model were adopted--by helping citizen advisory panels analyze
complex technical issues, by preparing "social impact" statements
on technological proposals, and by creating community-research
centers to help neighborhoods evaluate and influence alternative
strategies for economic development.


     Government officials report that today just three groups
dominate technology policy-making: the Pentagon and the national
weapons laboratories, elite academic scientists, and business.
The political scientist Philip Frankenfeld has called the
resulting range of opinion "the sound of one wagon circling."
Public interest groups, grass roots organizations, and ordinary
citizens represent a negligible force.


     Equally troubling, the military establishment is beating out
civilian agencies for control of federal programs to develop
commercial technologies.  The Pentagon-directed Technology
Reinvestment Project is slated to receive $474 million in the
current fiscal year, more than twice the amount appropriated for
the comparable Advanced Technology Program at the Commerce
Department.  Thus the Pentagon's penetration into the civilian
economy may be increasing, and, given military traditions of
secrecy and centralization, that could mean diminished
opportunities for democratic influence over decisions.


     Citizens need chances to influence technology decisions
because their lives are so deeply affected by the consequences.
Historians have shown how the design and operation of U.S.
infrastructure--including energy, water, sewage, transportation,
and telephone systems--helped weaken local democracy by isolating
citizens from decision making.  Similarly, the noise and danger
of automobiles, coupled with the allure of air conditioning,
central heating, and television, have eroded the custom of
outdoor neighborly gatherings, and the civic engagement that
accompanies such interchanges.


     Feminist scholars report many cases in which technologies
designed by men reproduced women's subordinate social status.
Secretaries and key-punch operators, who are preponderantly
female, are among the workers most prone to computerized job
surveillance, as well as repetitive motion injuries.  Yet
alternative choices are possible that would alter such social
outcomes.  Lobbying by people with physical disabilities, after
all, has proved that public transit can--despite claims to the
contrary--be designed to accommodate a wheel chair, shopping
cart, or baby carriage.


     Broadened participation can be an irreplaceable source of
insight and creativity.  The business-management literature is
replete with studies extolling the economic benefits of involving
workers in designing and managing workplace technologies.
Conversely, the absence of citizens' participation ultimately has
proved divisive and costly in areas such as nuclear power, toxic
waste disposal, and genetic engineering.  For example, citizen
participation could have alerted the Monsanto Company to the
opposition among consumers and owners of family farms to the use
of synthetic hormones to increase cows' milk production--before
it invested $300 million in R&D and endured years of controversy.


     Universities can help citizens and communities to become
productively involved in technological decisions in several ways:


     **Just as federal actions affecting the environment are
preceded by an environmental-impact statement, Congress could
require social- and political-impact statements before the
introduction or import of a significant technological innovation
(such as a biotechnology break-through) or before construction of
major technological installations (such as large power plants).
University faculty could play an important role in organizing
these studies, which might include assembling citizen advisory
boards and using participatory research methods.  In one recent
set of projects, for example, faculty members at Boston and
Harvard Universities helped concerned citizens conduct their own
epidemiological studies of toxic-waste hazards.


     **In cases where social consequences are especially hard to
anticipate, voluntary social trials can help identify them.
Scholars might, for example, compare the social results from a
set of local pilot projects, each delivering an alternative
bundle of electronic services.  Their analysis of the results
could be invaluable in helping officials guide development of the
nations information infrastructure.


     **Universities could also, with federal encouragement, help
create a national network of community research-and-policy
centers.  The centers could draw on academic and government
researchers, industrial-research consortia, and the new National
Service program.  Located on or near college campuses, such
centers might prepare the social impact statements on
technological developments, recruit local citizens to participate
research, and organize public forums and workshops on questions
involving science, technology, and economic development.


     Excellent precedents exist for such centers.  For example,
Dutch universities have evolved a vigorous network of public
"science shops" to respond to concerns of citizens, trade unions,
and community groups about technological issues.  Each shop's
paid staff, student interns, and faculty volunteers answer
questions and refer challenging problems to other university
faculty members.  Science shops, for example, have helped workers
evaluate the employment consequences of new production processes
and helped environmental groups document sources of industrial
pollution.


     In the United States some analogous precedents exist.  The
Pratt Institute's Center for Community and Environmental
Development has 30 years of experience in helping people in low-
income neighborhoods understand and influence economic
development.  Worcester Polytechnic Institute requires all
students to undertake a faculty-supervised project that brings
their technical training to bear in addressing a social problem.


     Another task for community-research centers could be to help
communities and regions diversify local production to match local
demand.  This would complement government programs that now tilt
strongly toward high-tech production for global markets.  Faculty
at Ball State University, for example, have begun regional market
studies and satellite-aided ecological analysis to help Indiana
farmers diversify their crops, reduce the use of chemicals, and
sell new products locally.


     Community-research centers also would counterbalance the
deepening ties of universities and national laboratories to
business.  By consistently engaging local social issues and
citizens' concerns, universities would help preserve their own
capacity for independent social criticism and educate students,
via internships or role modeling and volunteer work, for
responsible citizenship.  With time, a community-research network
could evolve into the decentralized, democratic core of a post-
cold war national-laboratory system.


     Additional opportunities exist to improve decision making.
Congress either has adopted or is contemplating new tax credits
for commercial research and development, business-investment
credits, and government technology loans.  Such programs should
be conditioned, at least in part, by socially determined
criteria.  For example, companies might earn higher tax credits
for conducting research or investing in equipment that helps
advance social objectives, such as producing high-quality jobs or
technologies that preserve the environment.


     Many government advisory panels, ranging from the National
Science Board to lower-level peer-review panels, include only
scientists and engineers.  The general public also needs a strong
voice, whether as lay members of such panels or in separate
advisory groups.  Similarly, all government-financed programs to
develop or disseminate new technology--such as extension centers
devoted to manufacturing technologies--need robust representation
by workers and other members of the general public.


     In the short run, foundations could play a vital role in
helping support the democratization of policy making.
Eventually, though, the costs of a community-research network and
of compensating citizens and experts for their public service
might be recouped via a modest tax on federal spending on
research and technological development.  A precedent exists in
the budget of the Human Genome Project, of which 3% is designated
for studies of its social implications.


     With the Cold War behind us, deep political and economic
transformations are underway.  We have an opportunity to remake
technology into the servant of democracy and society.  A better
opportunity may not come again in our lifetime.


__________________


     Richard E. Sclove is executive director of the Loka
Institute (P.O. Box 355, Amherst, Mass. 01004, USA) an
association of scholars and activists concerned with science,
technology, and democracy.  He contributed to _Technology for the
Common Good_ (Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 1993)
and is the author of _Technology and Freedom_, forthcoming from
Guilford Publishers.  He can be reached by e-mail at:
resclove () amherst edu


     _Technology for the Common Good_ is available for U.S.
$12.95 (plus $2.95 shipping) from IPS Publications, 1601
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20009, USA.  To order by
credit card, call (202) 234-9382, ext. 206.
_________________________________________________________________


     If are in basic sympathy with this opinion essay, it would
be helpful if you printed out copies and sent them to your
Senators and Congressman in Washington, DC, and also to Dr. Jack
Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, OEOB,
Washington, DC 20500.


     If you disagree with the essay, comments and criticism are
welcome: resclove () amherst edu


     If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka
Institute e-mail list, please send a message to that effect to:
resclove () amherst edu