Abstract
When a scientific and technological field is still emerging, promises of its social desirability and warnings about its potential negative effects are wide spread. The dawn of the Human Genome Project (HGP) is an exemplar in this respect. The high expectations that emerged from the early stage of genomics research have been drastically deflated while the field has continued to develop. Difficulties, uncertainty and unanticipated constraints arose at later stages of research to challenge the initial expectations of scientists, investors, policy makers, clinicians, patients and other social groups. These projections into the future described an individual or collective belief in the possibility that a certain state of affairs would come into being. Drawing on a diverse set of literature, this chapter discusses the strategic, performative and normative character of visions of technological futures. It argues that if, on the one hand, visions are morally characterized as implicitly normative, while, on the other, technologies and our morality mutual shape each other, the analysis of their “plausibility”, rather than their “desirability”, becomes crucial. The chapter concludes by outlining an approach to the reconstruction of plausible expectations around emerging technologies consisting of thickening, zooming in/out and situating visions of emerging technologies.
We are like sailors who have to rebuild their ship on the open sea, without ever being able to dismantle it in dry dock and reconstruct it from the best components (Neurath O, 1932 [1983] p 92)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Collins’ words: “As genome technology moves from the laboratory to the health care setting, new methods will make it possible to read the instructions contained in an individual person’s DNA. Such knowledge may foretell future disease and alert patients and their health care providers to undertake better preventive strategies. In the wrong hands, however, that same information could be used to discriminate against or stigmatize a person. In response to this concern, the Human Genome Project has catalyzed the development of policy options for lawmakers to consider in their efforts to prohibit genetic discrimination and to protect the privacy of genetic information. The stage is set to solve these vexing problems with effective federal legislation, but this window of opportunity will not stay open indefinitely” (Collins 1999).
- 2.
- 3.
For more information on the type of ELSI projects conducted within the HGP see http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/elsi.shtml
- 4.
On the basis of a simulation study–conducted to evaluate the predictive value and inheritance patterns of generic profiles and comparing the results with genetic tests for Huntington’s disease and hereditary cancers – (Janssens and Khoury 2006) shows how actual data on risk estimate in genetic variation carriers are only slightly higher than that in non-carriers. Even if research has been conducted in improving multiple genetic testing (genomic profiling), neither the predictions provided by these tests are informative, since “most of individuals have disease risks that are only slightly higher or lower than the average disease risk in the population”.
- 5.
This quote is taken from an interview with Neal Holtzmann, director of genetics and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, a skeptical voice during the debate on the revolution of genomics in medicine (in Richards 2001).
- 6.
They have an active role in creating agendas and in “interlocking” activities. Promises are, in fact, taken up in the agenda and allow the creation of new interactions and new roles for stakeholders, who gather around the promise. The interlocking of these positions creates a requirement that demands some action. In this way, expectations create obligations among the stakeholders and establish objectives that become constraining: they create emerging irreversibilities (Merkerk and Robinson 2006).
- 7.
The analysis of these dynamics also illustrates a temporal dimension of techno-social expectations (Borup et al. 2006). They change over time: while early on in the innovation journey promises are essential to attract attention and create niches for innovation to develop, later on these promises will likely be disappointed, giving way to disillusionment (Michael and Brown 2003).
- 8.
Selin (2007) shows how nanoscientists know both how and when to mobilize Drexler’s visions on nanotechnology, and how and when to dismiss them as science fiction.
- 9.
Philosophy of technology is a diverse and broad scholarly field that is hard to define in a systematic way. In a way, even Plato’s myth at the opening of Chap. 1 can be considered as a philosophical reflection on the role of artifacts and technologies. In the last 20 years some self-proclaimed philosophers of technology have drawn largely on sociological studies of science and technology (or Science and Technology Studies, STS) making the attempt to define the disciplinary field difficult, if not pointless. Furthermore, it is hard to draw a clear-cut distinction between philosophical reflection on scientific method, activity and role from philosophical reflection on technology. It goes beyond the scope of this book to provide a fair description of the field of philosophy of technology that would do justice to the wide variety of authors who have contributed to this field. In particular, Mitcham (1994) distinguishes a “humanities philosophy of technology”, which is continuous with social sciences and humanities, as opposed to an “analytic philosophy of technology” that seeks continuity with philosophy of science. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/)
- 10.
Latour 1987 introduces the concept of “actant” borrowing it from the field of semiotics. It refers to human and non-human entities whose agency is mediated by a spokesperson. Since for the purpose of this study I will not engage in a thorough semiotic analysis, I will keep the “actor” vocabulary to avoid unnecessary complex jargon. For a definition of the term “actant” see also Akrich and Latour 1992.
- 11.
Interestingly, the term “stakeholder” indicates somebody who has something “at stake”, some interest, value or (idea of) good to protect.
- 12.
In reconstructing the etymology of the terms, Ramirez and Selin show how the meaning of “plausibility” and “probability” have been confused and hardly distinguishable in some historical phases of the English language.
- 13.
Wiek and colleagues as well as Selin and Pereira and Ramirez and Selin have discussed the concept of plausibility in the context of foresight tools for decision-making in situations of uncertainty. Often they see plausibility as a criterion for constructing scenarios as tools for deliberative decision-making exercises (see Chap. 7 for a discussion on scenarios).
- 14.
Nordmann contends that the problem arises when the imagined world is assumed to be a possible likely future of the current world. What is our cognitive access to this future world, and is it qualitatively different from the one we know, asks Nordmann, and what is our ability of determining what will be plausible in this future world? The issue here requires us, of course, to specify how we can distinguish between an epistemically legitimate statement concerning a state of affairs in time in our current world (grammatically using the future tense: “the world population will increase by x number of people during the next 12 months” (133)) and a statement about a “future” which is discontinuous from our known world. Nordmann acknowledges this difference in a footnote, but it could be further explored.
References
Achterhuis, H. 2001. American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Akrich, M. 1992. The description of technological objects. In Shaping technology building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 259–264. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric. Hg. von W Rhys. Roberts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Arnaldi, S. 2010. Ordering technology, excluding society: The division of labour and sociotechnical order in images of converging technologies. International Journal of Nanotechnology 7(2): 137–154.
Berne, R.W. 2006. Nanotalk: Conversations with scientists and engineers about ethics, meaning, and belief in the development of nanotechnology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bijker, W.E., T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch. 1987. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology & history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Borup, M., N. Brown, K. Konrad, and H. Van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3–4): 285–298.
Brey, P. 2009. Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. In The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. L. Floridi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, N. 2006. Shifting tenses – from ‘regimes of truth’ to ‘regimes of hope’. Shifting Politics-politics of technology-the times they are a-changin’. Groningen April (2006): 21–22. SATSU working papers no 30. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/satsu/documents-papers/Brown-2006-shifting.pdf.
Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster. 2000. Contested futures: A sociology of prospective technoscience. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Burke, W., D. Atkins, M. Gwinn, A. Guttmacher, J. Haddow, J. Lau, G. Palomaki, N. Press, C.S. Richards, L. Wideroff, and G.L. Wiesner. 2002. Genetic test evaluation: Information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public. American Journal of Epidemiology 156(4): 311–318.
Collins, F.S. 1999. Medical and societal consequences of the human genome project. New England Journal of Medicine 341(1): 28–37.
Collins, F.S., et al. 1998. New goals for the U.S. Human genome project: 1998–2003. Science 282(5389): 682–689.
Crichton, Michael. 2002. Prey: Novel. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Dierkes, M., U. Hoffmann, and L. Marz. 1996. Visions of technology: Social and institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. Frankfurt/New York: Campus-Verl.
Epstein, C.J. 2004. Genetic testing: Hope or hype? Genetics in Medicine 6(4): 165–172.
Feenberg, A. 1995. Alternative modernity: The technical turn in philosophy and social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fischer, Claude S. 1992. America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fischer, C.S. 2011. Still connected: Family and friends in America since 1970. New York: Russell Sage.
Friedman, B., and Helen Nissenbaum. 1997. Software agents and user autonomy. In Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents – AGENTS’97, 466–469. New York: ACM Press.
Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn and Alan Borning. 2003. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. UW CSE technical report 02-12-01. Seattle: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington.
Geels, F.W., and W.A. Smits. 2000. Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures 32(9–10): 867–885.
Goggin, Gerard. 2006. Cell phone culture: Mobile technology in everyday life. London/New York: Routledge.
Grin, J. 2000. Technology assessment as a tool for political judgement. In Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society V, ed. J. Grin and A. Grunwald, 9–33. Berlin: Springer.
Grin, J., and A. Grunwald. 2000. Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society. Berlin: Springer.
Guice, J. 1999. Designing the future: The culture of new trends in science and technology. Research Policy 28(1): 81–98.
Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.
Hedgecoe, A. 2010. Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science 40(2): 163–186.
Hedgecoe, A., and P. Martin. 2003. The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33(3): 327–364.
Holtzman, N.A. 1999. Are genetic tests adequately regulated? Science 286(5439): 409.
Holtzman, N.A., and T.M. Marteau. 2000. Will genetics revolutionize medicine? New England Journal of Medicine 343(2): 141–144.
Humphreys, L. 2005. Cellphones in public: Social interactions in a wireless era. New Media & Society 7(6): 810–833.
Huxley, A. 1969. Brave new world [1932]. New York: Harper Perennial.
Ihde, D. 1991. Instrumental realism the interface between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Pres.
Janssens, C.A.J.W., and M.J. Khoury. 2006. Predictive value of testing for multiple genetic variants in multifactorial diseases: Implications for the discourse on ethical, legal and social issues. Italian Journal of Public Health 3(3): 35–41.
Konrad, K. 2006. The social dynamics of expectations: The interaction of collective and actor-specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive television. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3–4): 429–444.
Kroes, P., and A. Meijers. 2001. The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology. Amsterdam/New York: JAI.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artefacts. In Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. Bijker and J. Law, 225–258. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Latour, B., and Venn, C. 2002. Morality and technology. Theory, Culture & Society 19(5–6): 247–260.
Lucivero, F., T. Swierstra, and M. Boenink. 2011. Assessing expectations: Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. NanoEthics 5(2): 129–141.
Mike Michael, and Brown, Nik. 2003. A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(1): 3–18.
Mitcham, C. 1994. Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mol, A. 2000. What diagnostic devices do: The case of blood sugar measurement. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21(1): 9–22.
Moreira, T., and P. Palladino. 2005. Between truth and hope: On Parkinson’s disease, neurotransplantation and the production of the “self”. History of the Human Sciences 18(3): 55–82.
Nissenbaum, H. 1998. Values in the design of computer systems. Computers and Society 28(1): 38–39.
Nordmann, A. 2013. (Im)Plausibility2. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9(2-3-4): 125–132.
Nordmann, A., and A. Rip. 2009. Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 4(5): 273–274. Nature.
Ofcom. 2012. Communications market report 2012. Available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf
Paul, P. 2011. Don’t call me, I won’t call you http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/fashion/20Cultural.html?pagewanted=all. Retrieved on 17 Oct 2011.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Quist, J. 2007. Backcasting for a sustainable future: The impact after 10 years. Delft: Eburon.
Ramírez, R., and C. Selin. 2014. Plausibility and probability in scenario planning. Foresight 16(1): 54–74. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Richards, T. 2001. Three views of genetics: The enthusiast, the visionary, and the sceptic. BMJ 322(7293): 1016.
Selin, C. 2007. Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology & Human Values 32(2): 196–220.
Selin, C. 2011. Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 723–737.
Selin, C., and A. Guimarães Pereira. 2013. Pursuing plausibility. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9(2-3-4): 93–109.
Shelley Egan, C. 2011. Ethics in practice: Responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Enschede: Proefschrift Universiteit Twente.
Swierstra, T.E. 2010. Het huwelijk tussen techniek en moraal. In Moralicide. Mens, techniek en symbolische orde, ed. M. Huijer and M. Smits, 17–35. Lemniscaat: Rotterdam.
Swierstra, T. 2013. Nanotechnology and technomoral change. Etica e Politica 15(1): 200–219.
Swierstra, T., and A. Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1(1): 3–20.
Swierstra, T., R. van Est, and M. Boenink. 2009. Taking care of the symbolic order. How converging technologies challenge our concepts. NanoEthics 3(3): 269–280. Springer Netherlands.
van Lente, H. 1993. Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Enschede: Universiteit Twente, Faculteit Wijsbegeerte en Maatschappijwetenschappen.
Van Merkerk, R.O. 2007. Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies: A CTA of Lab on a chip technology. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Royal Dutch Geographical Society.
van Merkerk, R., and D. Robinson. 2006. Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: Expectations, agendas and networks in Lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4): 411–428.
Van Zwieten, M. 2008. Constructing results in prenatal diagnosis. Professionals anticipating parental decisions. In Genetics from laboratory to society : Societal learning as an alternative to regulation, ed. Gerard de Vries and Horstman Klasien. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Verbeek, P. 2005. What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park.
Wiek, Arnim, and David Iwaniec. 2013. Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 9(4): 497–512.
Wiek, Arnim, Lauren Withycombe Keeler, Vanessa Schweizer, and Daniel J. Lang. 2013. Plausibility indications in future scenarios. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 9(2-3-4): 133–147.
Wright, Erik Olin. 2010. Envisioning real utopias, vol. 98. London: Verso.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lucivero, F. (2016). Promises, Expectations and Visions: On Appraising the Plausibility of Socio-Technical Futures. In: Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23282-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23282-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23282-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)