How should scientists take responsibility for the negative effects of technological advancement?

The development of science and technology brings many conveniences to our lives, but it also brings many side effects, such as personal information leakage, internet addiction, and environmental pollution. Therefore, scientists and engineers must take responsibility for the social impact of technology, and social institutions must support them.

 

With an internet connection, we can shop at a mall on the other side of the world at any time, and there’s no place we can’t get to in half a day by airplane. We live with technologies that were unimaginable 100 years ago, and in the future, science and technology will become even more intertwined in our lives. However, the problem is that the deeper technology penetrates into our lives, the more negative side effects it causes. Personal information leakage through the Internet is a daily occurrence, and Internet addiction due to excessive Internet use is a serious social problem. In addition, greenhouse gases emitted by transportation such as airplanes cause global warming and threaten the environment. Although the primary cause of these damages is the users of the technology, it can be argued that scientists and engineers are also responsible in that their development of the technology is the starting point of the damage. In such a situation, should scientists be held responsible for the problems caused by the technologies they develop, and if so, what attitude should scientists take toward future technological development, and what kind of system should society support?
To answer these questions, we first need to discuss the value-neutrality of technology. There are two main meanings of value-neutrality of technology. One is philosophical, and the other is about the interaction between society and science and technology. Those who argue for value neutrality from a philosophical point of view claim that technology, like science, deals with facts and is therefore independent of our subjective value judgments. This argument is obviously false if we consider the dictionary definition of technology. Technology is defined as “the process of applying scientific theories to practice and manipulating objects in nature to make them useful for human life. In other words, since technology is not just knowledge, but also the process by which it is utilized, value judgments are inevitably involved in determining whether the effects produced by technology are useful for human life. Therefore, in a philosophical sense, technology is not value-neutral.
Secondly, there is a view that technology is value-neutral because it does not have any ideology or politics in society. This view argues that ethical issues, such as the misuse of technology, are the responsibility of the society or politicians who utilize the technology, and that scientists should only focus on the development of technology. However, in the process of developing technology, scientists are subject to economic and political influences, which are reflected in the technology. In the capitalist era, scientists are subject to the influence of capital, or capitalists, directly or indirectly. The development of technology inevitably incurs costs, and in order to cover these costs, scientists will develop technology in the direction that capital wants. Moreover, as science becomes more advanced, the cost of developing science and technology increases, and the dependence on capital naturally increases. Therefore, science and technology are developed for specific groups or purposes by capital. The dependence of technology on capital is illustrated by the fact that when it comes to developing new drugs, more research is done on less deadly diseases in the developed world than on endemic diseases that kill many people in the developing world. Now consider the political implications. In the 20th century, humanity experienced a knowledge revolution, which led to innovations in technology. As a result, technology itself has become a competitive advantage for countries and societies, and human society has become a “knowledge-based society” where scientific knowledge creates value and develops society. Therefore, many countries have directed their scientists and engineers to develop specific technologies, and in this process, technology has become politicized. This explains why nuclear fission and space exploration were developed so quickly compared to other technologies in the past. Therefore, it is difficult to say that science and technology are free of ideology and politics, and value neutrality cannot be established.
So far, we have examined two meanings of value-neutrality in science and technology, and concluded that technology is not value-neutral in each sense. If it is clear that technology is not independent in its relationship with society, but rather influences and affects each other, then the social responsibility of scientists and engineers who create technology should be emphasized in a modern society dominated by technology. The most fundamental responsibility would be to improve the quality of human life through technology. However, since technology is designed to improve the quality of human life in one way or another, scientists should focus more on situations where their technology unintentionally harms people. The reason why technologies that are designed to be useful for human life can paradoxically reduce the quality of human life is that they can be linked to a variety of ethical issues. For example, biotechnology that utilizes human genetic information or embryonic stem cells has been controversial because it is directly related to biomedical ethics, and the development of the Internet has led to ethical issues related to personal information leakage and copyright. In order to solve these problems, the efforts of individual scientists must be prioritized. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly review the problems caused by technology in the past, and make it a habit to think about the ethical issues that may arise from the technology they are currently developing. In addition, a culture of discussion of ethical issues among researchers in the same field should be encouraged to maintain objectivity.
However, there are a number of challenges for individual scientists to recognize and fulfill these ethical responsibilities. First, modern science and technology is developed through the collaboration of scientists from different fields. For example, large-scale research projects such as the development of particle accelerators, which were an important stepping stone to the discovery of the Higgs boson, were accomplished through the combined efforts of scientists from around the world. However, when such a large number of people are involved in research, it is not easy to hold someone accountable when ethical issues arise, and it is easy for individual scientists to fall into the error of thinking that they are not responsible. Second, most scientists are employees of national organizations or private research institutes, so even if they feel ethically responsible, they may not always be able to choose the latter when their duties as an employee and their ethical responsibilities conflict because their personal security is determined by their employer. In other words, scientists are in a difficult position to fulfill their role as whistleblowers. Third, it is difficult to stop the use of a technology once it has already become an integral part of society if ethical issues come to light. If the internet were to be banned because it causes privacy issues, it would lead to even greater social disruption.
Therefore, to overcome the above difficulties, social systems must be supported. First of all, a socially acceptable principle of responsibility distribution is needed to clarify the source of responsibility. In addition to the socially accepted principle of assigning more responsibility to higher-ranking people, I think it is reasonable that technicians who are closer to the application stage than the basic stage in terms of technology should assume more responsibility. However, this does not mean that technicians at the basic level should not be responsible. In many cases, at the basic level of science and technology, it is less clear how their work will be used and what the consequences will be than at the applied level. Therefore, it is incumbent on scientists close to the basic level to fully consider the role of their individual work in the context of the overall research and how it might be applied in the future, so that they can advise scientists at later stages. It is also necessary to provide opportunities for scientists to speak out responsibly when they recognize ethical issues. This requires a comprehensive social safety net for whistleblowers. Currently, there is a law called the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act, but it has been pointed out that it has limitations, as whistleblowers are often penalized for reasons other than whistleblowing, and the system needs to be improved. Finally, I believe that ethical issues regarding technology, which is already in an important position in society, should be addressed through government policies at the social level. However, it is necessary to actively utilize the system of citizen consensus in this process. Citizen consensus is a forum where ordinary citizens, selected like jurors in a court of law, exchange opinions with experts on scientific and technological topics, and then unify the opinions of the citizens to reflect them in the policy-making process. This method has the advantage of reducing the adverse effects of implementing policies on science and technology because citizens’ opinions are reflected when the government decides on policies, rather than just the government deciding on policies. In addition, the system of citizens’ councils is positive in that it can increase the social learning effect of ethical issues of technology and reduce the harm caused by them by citizens themselves by publicizing issues on ethical issues of technology not only to scientists but also to ordinary citizens.
Technology changes society, and vice versa, society affects the development of technology, and all of these processes are mediated by scientists and engineers. Therefore, in a modern society where science and technology determine the direction of social development, a sense of ethical responsibility is required of scientists. This responsibility can only be fully realized if it is supported by social institutions. If we strive to solve ethical problems based on accurate insights into the relationship between society and technology, human society will be able to maximize the positive aspects of technology while minimizing its negative effects.