I analyze the components of Mumford's megamachine and align key concerns in two pivotal works that characterize the impact of collective capacities on society: Bruno Latour's Pasteurization of France (1988) and Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power (1962). As I create a model of collective capacities in the sociotechnical according to the parameters of Mumford's megamachine, I rehabilitate two established ideas about the behavior of crowds and about the undue influence of technological systems on human behavior. I depart from Mumford's tactics and those of Canetti and Latour and propose a novel focus for STS on "sociotechnical crowds" as a meaningful unit of social measure. I make clear that Mumford's critique of the sociotechnical status quo still informs the conditions for innovation today.
Using mixed mode qualitative methods in two types of empirical field studies, I then investigate how a focus on the characteristics and components of collective human capacities in sociotechnical systems can affect the design and performance of TA. I propose a new model of TA, Emergent Technology Assessment (ETA), which includes greater public participation and recognizes the interrelationship among experience, affect and the material in mediating the innovation process. The resulting model -- the "soft" megamachine --introduces new strategies to build capacity for responsible innovation in society.
been a subject of great interest to policy and decision makers for the past 40 years.
Recent research indicates that while there exist specific shortages in specific disciplines
and areas of expertise in the private sector and the federal government, there is no
noticeable shortage in any STEM academic discipline, but rather a surplus of PhDs
vying for increasingly scarce tenure track positions. Despite the seeming availability
of industry and private sector jobs, recent PhDs still struggle to find employment in
those areas. I argue that the decades old narrative suggesting a shortage of STEM
PhDs in the US poses a threat to the value of the natural science PhD, and that
this narrative contributes significantly to why so many PhDs struggle to find career
employment in their fields. This study aims to address the following question: what is
the value of a STEM PhD outside academia? I begin with a critical review of existing
literature, and then analyze programmatic documents for STEM PhD programs at
ASU, interviews with industry employers, and an examination the public face of value
for these degrees. I then uncover the nature of the value alignment, value disconnect,
and value erosion in the ecosystem which produces and then employs STEM PhDs,
concluding with specific areas which merit special consideration in an effort to increase
the value of these degrees for all stakeholders involved.
Just prior to the green revolution, Indian wheat scientists adopted Borlaug’s new plant breeding philosophy—that varieties should have as wide an adaptation as possible. But Borlaug and Indian wheat scientists also argued that wide adaptation could be achieved by selecting only plants that did well in high fertility and irrigated environments. Scientists claimed, in many cases erroneously, that widely adapted varieties still produced high yields in marginal, or resource poor, areas. Many people have criticized the green revolution for its unequal spread of benefits, but none of these critiques address wide adaptation—the core tenant held by Indian wheat scientists to justify their focus on highly productive land while ignoring marginal and rainfed agriculture. My dissertation describes Borlaug and the RF's research program in wide adaptation, Borlaug's involvement in the Indian wheat program, and internal debates about wide adaptation and selection under favorable environments among Indian scientists. It argues that scientists leveraged the concept of wide adaptation to justify a particular regime of research focused on high production agriculture, and that the footprints of this regime are still present in Indian agriculture.
I turn to an actual example where people are trying to make themselves marginally better at academic tasks, as a guide to how future transformative development in human enhancement may be incorporated into everyday practice. This project examines the history and context that led to the widespread use of stimulant medication on college campuses. I describe how Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), for which stimulant medication is prescribed and diverted, governs students, negotiates relationships between parents and school authorities, and manages anxieties resulting from a competitive neoliberal educational system. I extend this archeology of ADHD through the actions and ethical beliefs of college students, and the bioethical arguments for and against human enhancement. Through this work, I open a new space for an expanded role for universities as institutions capable of creating experimental communities supporting ethical cognitive enhancement.
In recent years, biological research and clinical healthcare has been disrupted by the ability to retrieve vast amounts of information pertaining to an organism’s health and biological systems. From increasingly accessible wearables collecting realtime biometric data to cutting-edge high throughput biological sequencing methodologies providing snapshots of an organism’s molecular profile, biological data is rapidly increasing in its prevalence. As more biological data continues to be harvested, artificial intelligence and machine learning are well positioned to aid in leveraging this big data for breakthrough scientific outcomes and revolutionized medical care. <br/><br/>The coming decade’s intersection between biology and computational science will be ripe with opportunities to utilize biological big data to advance human health and mitigate disease. Standardization, aggregation and centralization of this biological data will be critical to drawing novel scientific insights that will lead to a more robust understanding of disease etiology and therapeutic avenues. Future development of cheaper, more accessible molecular sensing technology, in conjunction with the emergence of more precise wearables, will pave the road to a truly personalized and preventative healthcare system. However, with these vast opportunities come significant threats. As biological big data advances, privacy and security concerns may hinder society's adoption of these technologies and subsequently dampen the positive impacts this information can have on society. Moreover, the openness of biological data serves as a national security threat given that this data can be used to identify medical vulnerabilities in a population, highlighting the dual-use implications of biological big data. <br/><br/>Additional factors to be considered by academia, private industry, and defense include the ongoing relationship between science and society at-large, as well as the political and social dimensions surrounding the public’s trust in science. Organizations that seek to contribute to the future of biological big data must also remain vigilant to equity, representation and bias in their data sets and data processing techniques. Finally, the positive impacts of biological big data lie on the foundation of responsible innovation, as these emerging technologies do not operate in standalone fashion but rather form a complex ecosystem.
Universal Basic Income is a proposed policy where the government would regularly pay all citizens in cash. The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) has had a resurgence in recent years because of popular figures like Andrew Yang and Elon Musk, but its history and potential implications go deep into the structure of human society. This thesis delves into how a basic income would transform social concepts of work and disrupt the personal economic model. With the bargaining power and freedom granted by a basic income, workers would find themselves in a position of work freedom and choice that has never existed in human history. With new freedom to do as they wish, the place of work in people’s lives needs to be reimagined as a source of fulfillment instead of an unlikeable but necessary part of everyday life. Workers will be given the choice to leave unfair or unfulfilling work and decide for themselves how they want to contribute within society. From increasing mental and economic well-being for most Americans to serving as a response to unemployment trends in the automated future, to encouraging greater business innovation, there are myriad ways in which basic incomes have the potential to benefit society. Framed by Martin Luther King Jr. and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the only policy capable of abolishing poverty forever, Universal Basic income will be an important feature of transformative innovative policy advocacy until it is adopted by a major world government at which point the effects in practice will become clear.