MODULE 1 – Introduction to Science, Technology, and Society

SCIENCE
- From Latin scientia = “knowledge.”
- Systematic, empirical, and evidence-based method for answering questions about the universe.
- Produces ideas, explanations, regularities, principles, and laws.
- John Heilbron: Modern science is both discovery (finding regularities) and invention (creating techniques, abstractions, apparatuses, organizations).
TECHNOLOGY
- From Greek techne = “art, skill, cunning of hand.”
- Purposeful application of scientific knowledge to create tools, services, machines that make life more convenient, efficient, comfortable.
- Mark Zuckerberg’s 2014 town-hall definition: a tool that “takes a human’s sense or ability and augments it.” Example: glasses/contacts improve vision.

Contrary to modern perception, technology predates formal science.
- Ancient societies advanced technology via trial-and-error, not formal scientific method.
- Example: “Five-minute theorem” in ancient engineering—if a structure stood $5\ \text{minutes}$ after scaffolding removal, it was assumed to last indefinitely. Risky yet yielded enduring monuments.
Today, modern technology is deeply grounded in fundamental science, but funding/market forces shape what ideas reach application.

Wolpert poses the foundational STS question: Should science be feared?
- Context: Public anxiety that scientists might be driven by ambition rather than wisdom & responsibility; pop-culture trope of scientists “playing God.”
Wolpert’s provocative answer: “Reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value.”

SCIENCE: Describes how the universe works; inherently descriptive.
TECHNOLOGY: Applies knowledge for practical purposes; inherently purposive and value-laden.
Conflation problem: Public often treats S&T as the same, blurring ethical analysis.
“Reliable” as safeguard:
- If a study violates scientific method (e.g., unreliable data, flawed design), then moral/ethical scrutiny rightly applies.
- Examples raising ethical flags despite being “science”:
- Human-trial vaccine experiments
- Genetic modification of crops
- Research funded by entities with conflicts of interest
  - Journals hence require conflict-of-interest & funding declarations for transparency.

Science must first be good (reliable) before we may call it value-free.
Funding & political/business pressures threaten reliability and create ethical entanglements.

Ensure accurate & reliable research – methodological rigor; results free from bias.
Oppose misuse/abuse of findings – speak against political, economic, or other exploitative manipulations.
Disclose limitations & foreseeable impacts – go beyond lab to discuss social, political, economic, cultural consequences.
Engage in public discourse on appropriate use of science – participate in policy, governance, societal applications.
Bring expertise to grassroots education – communicate in non-technical language; make science meaningful to ordinary citizens.
Facilitate informed decision-making & democracy – volunteer expertise for science-driven policies (public health, transport, data, food safety).

Scientists bear greater social obligations than ordinary citizens due to privileged knowledge.

Ethical dilemma: Scenario where no option fully aligns with ethical codes, norms, or personal morality; must weigh benefits vs. risks.
COVID-19 pandemic as exemplar:
- Trade-offs between economic reopening and infection control.
- Questions on lockdown extent, support for vulnerable populations, and compromise solutions.
Annual “Top 10 Emerging Ethical Dilemmas in S&T” list (Jessica Baron & Notre Dame’s Reilly Center) highlights continual emergence of such issues.
Other modern concerns: data breaches, privacy invasion, hate crimes, gun violence—often products of S&T misuse.
Carl Sagan’s warning: Society depends on S&T but public lacks understanding—“a clear prescription for disaster.”

Goals of STS include enhancing PUS to counteract fear and exclusivity.
Barriers:
- Perception of insufficient technical knowledge & language among laypeople.
- Historical exclusivity of scientific findings to inner circles.
Benefits of robust PUS (Marincola, 2006):
- Empowers citizens in science-driven markets, economies, and democratic issues.
- Increases acceptance of innovations; aligns products with shared values.
- Demands transparency and quality in science education and data.
Tri-partite responsibility:
- Public – demand education & transparency.
- Scientists – inclusive communication.
- Governments – facilitate public participation in science-related policy.

Principles: Openness, transparency, fully keeping the public informed (FM Kang Kyung-wha).
Key actions:
- Testing is central – early detection, minimized spread, rapid treatment. By $15\,\text{March}\,2020$ , testing $260{,}000$ citizens per day.
- Rapid approval of testing systems – after China shared viral genetic sequence (mid-Jan $2020$ ), Korean authorities collaborated with pharma firms to produce reagents/equipment quickly.
- Digital monitoring – mobile app tracked contacts; avoided full European-style lockdowns.
Outcomes: High public trust, efficient containment, exemplar of PUS + science-informed policy.

Obligation to support democratic societies and protect citizens’ rights via responsible science.
Use specialized knowledge “in pursuit of the greater good.”
Engage at multiple levels: policy shaping, public education, ethical guardianship.

STS bridges descriptive science and purposive technology with societal contexts.
Reliability is prerequisite for science’s claim to value-freedom; technology invariably embeds values.
Ethical practice demands scientists act against misuse, disclose impacts, and engage the public.
Robust public understanding enables better governance, acceptance of innovation, and ethical oversight.
South Korea’s pandemic success illustrates synergy of transparent science, informed citizens, and responsive policy.
Ongoing vigilance required: emerging technologies continuously pose new ethical dilemmas demanding STS-informed analysis.