Beach Haven

References
​Hess, David J. 2016. Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Review by Michael Beach

In this work, David J. Hess looks at controversial issues that involve “complex scientific and technological issues that can provoke sharp divisions in public opinion” (Hess 2016, 1). As a way to examine the role of scientific and technological expertise Hess includes specific topics to include climate change, industrial pollution, nanomaterials, technologies of surveillance, and products of molecular biology. It’s safe to say these topics are both ongoing and controversial. Although he looks at the political issues themselves, the point of the work is to look at epistemological perspectives by and about scientists and technologists involved in these specific focus areas.

One example of an area Hess examines is depicted in the chapter 3 title; “The Politics of Meaning: From Frames to Design Conflicts” (Hess 2016, 79). The controversial topics noted above are not the focus of this chapter so much as the setting. The focus is on how researchers tend to frame the arguments and issues that need attention, and the cultural factors that influence their analysis. How does one create an analysis (breaking down ideas into parts) then move towards a meaningful synthesis (understanding the way the parts interact)? Designing an approach to both analysis and synthesis is where many human factors can cause variation in approach that also cause variation in artifacts produced in the process. This variable process is what causes many of us who are not experts in a given controversial topic such as climate change to put stock in one political position or another using ‘science’ as one of our arguments in favor of a given position. An example Hess shares relates to high emissions by buses. The bus depots that have the highest pollution emission concentrations tend to be in lower-income parts of cities. He gives examples of studies conducted in specific cities that linked income with bus depot locations. These studies further linked low-income neighborhoods with predominantly African American residents. Yet, one needs to examine the details about bus usage, historical demographic changes in neighborhoods, and other similar factors. “More generally, the analysis of race and design in the urban transit system suggest a need for methodological caution” (Hess 2016, 91). Studies have often suffered criticism in the process of going from the general the specific (analysis), then applying the specific to the general (synthesis). Humans are making decisions all along the process of what to examine and what to ignore in collecting data. Then humans are making decisions all along the process of which variables and data are relevant and which are not. In the language of statistical analysis, what information is statistically significant, and how does one define statistically significant? How much variability in data is acceptable to call something ‘significant’? The subjectivity is ultimately what has led to an erosion of confidence by some in scientific expertise. 
​

References
Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The Descent of Icarus: Sceince and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

​Review by Michael Beach

The author has looked at the cross-section of science and politics since the 1960s. In this work, Yaron Ezrahi considers the role of scientific expertise in the policy process within modern ‘liberal-democratic’ states. He shares examples of the ascension of science as an authoritative voice in coming to ‘objective’ conclusions. Over time, other factors came to have as much or more influence in policy. Since experts of similar credential don’t always agree, and some change their perspective over time, public policy makers have come to view expertise as one area of consideration when forming public policy, not so much as the area of consideration. The lowering of scientific authority from preeminence to that of one more voice of many is its descension. Science is more generally understood to have both objective and subjective components, often with ‘dueling experts’ on opposite sides of a policy question.

Ezrahi examines both political process and its relationship with scientific process. The work is divided into three sections. The first examines the political functions of science. It is followed by a look at dilemmas that arise between private persons and public actions. This includes those who act as scientific experts, but also those who create policy, and the rest of us who vote in a democratic society. The final section takes deep dive into effects caused by the privatization of science in the United States specifically.

One interesting thread for me as a reader was the author’s look at machines as a metaphor in scientific and policy processes. For example, machines can be viewed as helpful and positive, or out of control. In the first, we have influence and benefit from mechanistic processes. They create a fair and equal environment. In the second, those not directly inside the machine are powerless and fall victim to its seemingly mindless path. Where one falls in the machine metaphor as benevolent or apocalyptic, depends a great deal on the specific country or culture with which one is surrounded. 
​

​Bibliography
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

Sheila Jasanoff is a leading scholar on topics of how science and technology are coproduced with society. Each influences change in the other. In this work she examines how biology and politics interact with each other.

She uses examples of how scientific change is influenced differently in different societies. For example, in the US, foods using genetically modified organisms (GMO) such as grains have largely been adopted. There are parts of US society that feel uncomfortable with GMO foods. This created a market for ‘whole foods’ or ‘non-GMO’. People will pay extra for the labeling. When this same topic came up in the UK, there was sufficient public backlash to cause the government to create anti-GMO laws. Jasanoff points to several things that caused the different reactions. For one, in England there had been a health hazard created by the science community. Intending to help increase beef production efficiency through modifying cattle feed, the result was so-called ‘mad cow disease’. Much of the stock in the UK was slaughtered and burned to prevent the disease spreading to humans.

​Other areas explored in the book by Jasanoff include cloning, stem cell use, animal patenting, and reproductive technologies. She contrasts approaches in the US, the UK, and Germany. She also documents how rifts grew among these countries over how best to govern innovation in genetics and biotechnology.

Bibliography
Steinberg, Ted. 2000. Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natrual Disaster in America. 2nd. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach

In this work, Ted Steinberg looks at human action increases events that count as catastrophic through increasing where we live and work. He also speaks to how our modification of geography, flora, fauna, and climate also increases the number and severity of natural disasters.

In terms of impact to human life, Steinberg shows how the poor, elderly and minorities are impacted more than those who have more means. In some examples such as specific floods, he shows how land values are higher as distance from flood zones increases. As land value increases the purchase prices grow beyond the ability of lower income home buyers and renters. In lower cost flood zones where poor people can afford to live, the increase of insurance costs means they are less likely to carry flood coverage. If all people could afford to live at higher elevations, then fewer buildings would be built in flood-prone areas and losses would be less.

Other examples are shared throughout the book where human activity adds to both the frequency and impact of largescale disasters. Crowded cities give way to faster spreading pandemics. As with pandemics, closely compacted homes built from combustible materials have made large fires engulfing whole portions of cities. Floods along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, the burning of Chicago, Hurricane Katrina, and the list goes on.

There are, of course, many ways to mitigate both the frequency and impact, but they all take two things; money and social will. At least in the case of modern construction there are improvements, but generally only where zoning rules require them for new construction or major renovation. That doesn’t protect existing structures, nor do such efforts guarantee complete survivability. These efforts still don’t address where people live based on their economic strata. In America, we are slow to want to preclude people from their freedom to live where they wish, or at least where they can afford to. There are no easy answers, and the answers we do have are partial at best. 
​

Bibliography
​Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
 
Andrew Pickering takes a look at science as a practical work. While there are many philosophical arguments abounding in regards to science in theory, he examines social forces that shape and are shaped by the processes in scientific decision making.

Pickering offers some clarification around the word ‘mangle’. He realizes that this has a different meaning in different places. In America, for example, he notes that the word refers to completely messing something up from the original intention of the thing in question. In his sense mangle means, “practice, understood as the work of cultural extension” (original emphasis) (Pickering, 1995, p. 3). He equates ‘mangle’ with ‘change’. To Pickering, the practice of science is to change it from the theoretical to the real.

He uses some examples to show how process and outcomes don’t always follow original assumptions. One example includes experimentation using a bubble chamber. It includes “the extension of the mechanic field of science, specifically of the development of the bubble chamber as an instrument for experimental research in elementary-particle physics” (Pickering, 1995, p. 37). Pickering shares the history of decisions it took to get to a working model, and the modification of how ‘working’ was eventually defined. Since the chamber ultimately did not create the exact vacuum conceived, the vacuum it did achieve served to define what a bubble chamber is.

Other examples in the book include “hunting the quark,” “constructing quaternions,” and “numerically controlled machine tools.” Each comes with its own history of conception through realization with social compromises along the way. Finally, Pickering finishes with two chapters on conceptual arguments about the kinds of influences and ways to perhaps embrace or reconstruct them. In Chapter 6 for example, he puts some focus on scientific norms as espoused by Robert Merton which have been argued about since their inception. Pickering considers these norms (or any others) as ‘articulations’. 
​

Bibliography
Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and Technology. New York and London: The Guilford Press.

​Reviewed by Michael Beach
 
In this work, Richard Sclove examines both various forms of democratic societies and how they approach incorporating technology, and he also looks at where these approaches tend to fail. At the end of the book, Sclove proposes his own suggestion of democratic methods that he feels would work best in a ever more international environment.

Two of the examples Richard Sclove regularly refers to are water provision in rural Spain and Amish farming communities. In the case of the Spanish towns, old systems were quickly upgraded to ‘modern’ water systems. Among the results were increase used of home laundry systems. Community spirit decreased over time as people did not gather at local streams for cleaning clothing. Likewise, gathering at well sites went away as manual retrieval in buckets we no longer necessary. The Amish farmer example, on the other hand, included community discussion on adding any technology. The goal of continued community interaction and cooperation is at the heart of each decision to add or not to add a particular technology. That is different than what many assume. Amish communities are often thought to technology-averse. Sclove argues this is untrue. He points to technologies adopted over many years by Amish communities. The key is whether the implementation would cause separation or isolation among community members.

Among other areas, Sclove reviews topics like the role of experts, international and local impacts of technical decisions, and how power dynamics influence and are influenced by technology. User influence on technical design choices within differing forms of democracy wraps up this examination followed by the author’s own recommendations. What Sclove calls “A New and Better Vision” (Sclove, 1995, p. 239) is laid out in an earlier chapter in the book. There are nine criteria (Sclove, 1995, p. 98) divided into five categories. Each category is elaborated on in separate chapters. The categories include: toward democratic community, toward democratic work, toward democratic politics, to help secure democratic self-governance, and finally to help perpetuate democratic social structures.

From the perspective of Richard Sclove, it is possible to have a democratic approach in selecting technology, even within societies that are less democratic. At the same time a democratic government does not imply the same principles are used to select which technologies any particular society will adopt. 
​

Bibliography
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.

Review by Michael Beach
​ 
Wiebe Bijker uses three specific technology examples to explore how social factors affect technical outcomes. “The stories we tell about technology reflect and can also affect our understanding of the place of technology in our lives and our society” (Bijker, 1995, p. 1). Although this quote may sound as if Bijker is arguing along a co-constructive line, yet throughout the book it’s clear that he asserts that social influence on technology is the primary force.

The bicycle chapter looks at the evolution of how they were designed and constructed. The perceptions evolved from the large bikes that were for daring young men who at times suffered the odd broken bone or two. Such perception led to the eventual production of the ‘safety bike’ that looks ever more like the bikes we typically ride today. By changing front and rear tire size, adding breaks, making seats wider, and other modifications, the community of bicycle riders expanded to include older people and women.

Bakelite is a substance that I became very familiar with while serving in the US Navy. Pretty much every placard on the ship I served on were made of it. Bakelite is an early form of plastic created and modified over time by the company formed by Leo Henricus Arthur Baekeland. Through all sorts of chemical combinations and varying heating temperature and bake timing, he was able to form a number of plastics of different flexibility and strength. The hard relatively thin version seemed to gain the biggest use of Bakelite. Eventually this form of plastic was supplanted by more modern forms that require less toxic waste to create. Newer plastic is also less expensive to make. Nonetheless, for the better part of a century many needs formerly provided by less durable materials, or those more metallic-based and subject to oxidation, were replaced by this early form of plastic.

Turning to bulbs, Bijker looks at the creation of the electric florescent light. What eventually became the long tubes we have all come to know, the approach was thought to fill the need of longer lasting bulbs that could light larger areas than the small incandescent. Industrial facilities in particular had difficulty fully lighting large factory spaces with small incandescent bulbs, and larger spotlights required more frequent replacement. This example specifically addresses not only social influence on invention, but even organized social effort to standardize the eventual technology. Bijker shares several examples of groups of users and bulb manufacturers who even held conferences in an effort to agree on gases used, electrical voltage standards, and the like.

Wiebe Bijker makes the argument for a ‘constructionist analysis’ (p. 280). “Such an analysis stresses the malleability of technology, the possibility for choice, the basic insight that things could have been otherwise” (author’s emphasis) (Ibid.). Bijker immediately notes that not all technological change is so malleable. Later sociologists of technology would take this assumption of social preeminence in the relationship between technology and society to a more level two-way influence. That conception of a level playing field is known as co-construction.
​

Bibliography
​Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London & New York: Routledge.
 
This work is a compilation of academic papers that relate to the titular topic. The theory of co-production is essentially that science and technology evolve as influenced by sociological forces, and society also evolved in part based on technological and scientific change. Facts of science, and artifacts of technology bring change to society, and are changed by society as it changes. Co-production does not assume science and technology as the sole influencers or influenced. Several of the chapter authors do make the case describing the relationship in either stronger or weaker terms, essentially putting science and technology at various level of sociological priority as compared with other societal influencers.

As editor, Sheila Jasanoff describes co-production as a framework. She notes how many of the chapters examine specific examples, and “in working out co-productionist ideas through detailed empirical studies, they also demonstrate the framework’s practical uses and limits” (Jasanoff, 2004, p. 6). She also describes co-production as an idiom. Shaping the associated language simultaneously shapes the perspective. Narrowing of language might make things clearer, but the risk lies in also narrowing the perspective and leaving out what might not be addressed by the framework. This is true in any similar effort. Don’t get me wrong when I say this. I put a good deal of stock in the ideas of co-production as compared to say earlier notions of determinism, or constructivism.

One risk here is how one determines a specific ‘society’. For example, those who both use and design the latest video games can be a somewhat narrow demographic. A specific portion of the larger society may indeed both influence and get influenced by the specific technology, but how much of a role do non-users play (pun intended). One can argue tangential technology change that gets implemented in other less narrow projects. Yet, are not those other projects just another application targeting a different narrow portion of society?
​
Jasanoff concedes at the end of the book that, “this approach is more consistent with projects of interpretation than intervention” (Jasanoff, 2004, p. 280). “Such studies,” she continues, “are better suited to explaining how things came to be ordered in particular ways than at forecasting future impacts of specific choices and decisions.”

Review by Michael Beach

Bibliography
​Jayawardhana, R. (2013). Neutrino Hunters: The Thrilling Chase for a Ghostly Particle to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe. New York: Scientific American.
 
I first got interested in neutrino particles many years ago. When we lived in Colorado, much of my professional work put me on airplanes, heading for many corners of the globe. One of those trips I was thumbing through an airline magazine and saw a story on neutrinos. Much of the description of the 'ghost particle' mirrored descriptions of the substance of the spirit as described in the Doctrine and Covenants. I have often kicked myself for not hanging onto the magazine.

I recently stumbled across this book. It is essentially a history of those scientists who made speculation about subatomic particles in general, then those who were able to create tools to try and measure their forces. In the process they discovered many subatomic particles, neutrinos just being one among the discoveries. In the book there are several sections that act as tutorials both of the current understanding of the various subatomic particles, as well as the methods and infrastructure it takes to run experiments and take force measurements. The science is complicated of course, but someone like me who is less ingrained in the community can follow along as described by Ray Jayawardhana. In fact, my poor Anglo brain might find his name more difficult to say than to grasp his explanation of the science involved (just kidding... sort of).

Despite the broader descriptions of other particles, the focus of the book is on neutrinos and the specific scientists who worked it all out. As one might guess, there were plenty of setbacks, collaborations, and competitive interference. Some of the discovery was accidental, or perhaps better said as incidental. As the evidence mounted not all involved were supportive of the explanations eventually adopted. This may be because of the normal versus revolutionary paradigmatic science as described by Thomas Kuhn. At any rate, human endeavor is fraught, and whether facts are created or discovered (that’s a debate by the way), acceptance is rarely universal and almost never rapidly so. Such was and is still the case surrounding subatomic theory (quantum mechanics) and the neutrino in particular.

​Review by Michael Beach

Bibliography
Medina, E. (2011). Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press..

As the title suggests, this work is a look at technology efforts in 1970’s Chile. This of course was pre-Internet. The Chilean government was attempting centralized planning and operation of the country’s economy by bringing all sorts of data about things like crop yields, price indices, and interest rates into not only a single computer system, but into a single physical location. The location was a sort of Star Trek ship bridge where an octagonal room was ringed with screens of data. Statisticians worked to make sense of all the information. Also in the room was a ring of futuristic chairs for government officials to discuss the information. Each chair included a number of control buttons that allowed the occupant to manipulate a screen.

By definition, data is post-facto, but in the case of the Chilean effort, because of the limited tech of the day, some data was not only slow in coming, but by the time it made it to the central room, it was counter-factual.

Although Chilean president Salvador Allende was attempting to ‘centralize’ decisions, the political climate was also one of decentralization, as in the data came from decisions being made at other locations. This was a reflection of his political views. The approach was a holistic design to account for decentralized data through a national Telex network. At the time, Chile was in the throws of work stoppages by industrial workers in particular. The network was dubbed ‘Cybersyn’.

Because of the instability of Chilean politics of the day, the full system never really got running. In many ways, the project was the brain child of Stafford Beer, who was a British cybernetician. Like the program he shepherded, his own status in Chile waxed and waned with the popularity of the Allende government. At times he had his family in Chile with him in lavish surroundings. As Allende’s topple neared, Beer had to leave his family out of Chile for their physical safety. He found himself at increasing risk in more and more spartan accommodations.
​
The story is a good case study of how political agendas and technological thought go hand in hand. Although Allende’s success was not pinned to Cybersyn, the technical effort was clearly dependent on political will and support. The tech was seen by administration opponents as a controlling means to ends such groups were against. As a result, the program was scrapped along with the government administration that championed and represented the programmatic ideals. Values of the Allende leadership were seen as expressed in the aims of the Cybersyn project, and any associated technology. Eden Medina speculates that the nature of the technology as a closed system caused people without access to view the whole as suspect. In today’s world, something approaching more universal access to the tech, if not the information, would likely cause less anti-tech rhetoric. Political animas would be more toward the specific way it was used to gather intelligence, make decisions, and enact policy that many felt as repressive.