Syllabus: Science, Society, and Technology



Department of Sociology, Spring 2012

Instructor: Dan Lainer-Vos, lainer-vos@usc.edu

Class: Tuesday, Thursday 11:00-12:20 KAP 146

Office Hours: Tuesday 3:20-5:00 or by appointment, KAP 348E

Teaching Assistant: Brad Nabors, bnabors@usc.edu

Office Hours: Monday 2:00-3:30; Tuesday 12:30-2:00, KAP 355

SOCI 210g: Science, Technology, and Social Conflict

Science and technology play immensely important roles in our lives. Scientific knowledge and ideas shape policies dealing with “scientific issues,” like climate change and cancer treatment, but also seemingly non-scientific issues like social welfare, economic development, and security policies. Scientific discoveries and technological artifacts also influence how we think of ourselves. In short, science plays a major role in shaping who we are as human beings.

Understanding how science, technology, and society work together in shaping our world, however, is not easy. One reason for this is that we tend to think of science and society as belonging to entirely different spheres. Facts are thought to belong to nature, not to society. Scientific facts seem somehow “above” the messiness of ordinary social life and politics. For this reason, it is hard to understand how they are interrelated. Or perhaps the difficulties in thinking about science and society arise from the fact that science is so intimately woven into the fabric of our lives that we tend to take it for granted. Either way, the relationship between science, technology and society evade serious scrutiny. This course will use the sociological perspective to explore the intersection of science and society.

This is not a course in science, but a course about the relationships between science and society and about the social issues that arise from the advancement of science and technology. We will try to untangle the interaction between science, technology, and society by examining key controversies that reflect these complex dynamics. Rather than asking whether particular scientific claims are true or false, we will ask how scientists produce facts, and how these facts shape our life. The course will be divided to two parts. In the first part we will ask what is so unique about modern science and what makes scientific facts so strong in comparison with other truth statements (of religious or political leaders, for example). Equipped with a better understanding of what science is and how it is done, in part two we will explore a number of interesting controversies at the intersection between science and society. Specifically, we will explore how science changes the way we understand the world around us and our relation to our society. This investigation will be rather eclectic in nature. We will examine topics like the invention of “nature,” the relationships between fossil fuels and democracy, genetically modified foods, patenting, and war-making in the age of information. We will also examine how science changes our understanding of who we are as human beings. Specifically, we will explore the development of prenatal technology, the intersection of science and mental health and how computers change the way we interact and work with each other.

Course Requirements and Grading:

You are expected to attend class regularly and participate in class discussions. The reading for each week should be completed prior to first lecture of the week on Tuesday. To help you prepare and follow the lecture, I will post lecture outlines on Blackboard a day before the class meetings (class outlines are not a summary of the class but is designed to help you understand the structure of the class and follow the argument). In addition, during the semester, we will make short field tours to selected USC laboratories. These visits are not mandatory but they are highly recommended. Please make an effort to participate in these tours.

Your grade for the class will be based the following factors:

• Participation in class discussions (10%)

• A midterm and a final assignment (35% each)

• 4 blog entries (20%).

The midterm and final exams will consist of concept definitions and a short essay question (choice will be provided in both sections). In the essay you will be required to critically discuss one or more of the key themes of the course using course readings. The essays are your opportunity to construct arguments and defend them based on the readings and on class discussions. Grading the essays will be based on the following criteria: 1) clear statement of the argument of the essay; 2) clarity in the presentation of the relevant theories; 3) critical engagement with the theories; 4) overall readability; 5) selection and use of references; 6) originality, logic, and coherence of the argument. The midterm and final assignment should be uploaded to blackboard.

During the semester, at your convenience, you are required to contribute four blog entries to the class’s wiki. The blogs should respond to the readings of the relevant week and discuss outstanding questions you may have, points in the arguments that you find intriguing, and any associations you may have that are related to the readings. Blog posts must be concise (maximum of 500 words per entry, preferably less) and enticing—just like blog posts you follow regularly. Be sure to post your entries at least 24 hours before the first class meeting (that is, by Monday, noon). We will grade the blogs fairly liberally—if you contributed the required four entries and invested in making the blogs coherent, you can expect to get the full grade on this requirement.

The materials and concepts covered in this course are abstract and not easy to grasp.  At times, you may feel a bit lost. Be sure to attend the required discussion sections to gain a deeper grasp of the materials. You should also take advantage of our office hours to flesh out matters and make sure that your essays are on the right track. If you cannot attend the scheduled office hours, please email us and we will find a time that will work for you.

Statement for Students with Disabilities

Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to me as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.

Statement on Academic Integrity

USC seeks to maintain an optimal learning environment. General principles of academic honesty include the concept of respect for the intellectual property of others, the expectation that individual work will be submitted unless otherwise allowed by an instructor, and the obligations both to protect one’s own academic work from misuse by others as well as to avoid using another’s work as one’s own. All students are expected to understand and abide by these principles. Scampus, the Student Guidebook, contains the Student Conduct Code in Section 11.00, while the recommended sanctions are located in Appendix A: . Students will be referred to the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards for further review, should there be any suspicion of academic dishonesty. The Review process can be found at: .

Readings

Biagioli, Mario. 1999. The Science Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

The required books are available at USC bookstore. Readings marked with an asterisk are available on Blackboard. The rest of the readings are available online through USC’s libraries online.

Course outline and readings (subject to minor changes per the progression of the class)

Part I: What is Science? How do scientists produce facts?

Week 1) January 10-12: What is science?

Collins, Harry and Trevor Pinch. 1993. “Introduction: the golem” and “A new window on the universe: the non-detection of gravitational radiation.” Pp 1-3, 91-108 in Collins, Harry and Trevor Pinch The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.*

Week 2) January 17-19: What is so special about Science? Falsification and norms

Popper, Karl. 1963. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations,” pp 33-39; 52-58 in Science: Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Routledge.*

Merton, Robert. 1973. “The normative structure of science.” Pp. 267-280 in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and empirical Investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.*

Week 3) January 24, 26: Scientific progress and scientific revolutions I

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (chapter 1-8)

Week 4) January 31, February 2: Scientific Progress and Scientific revolutions II

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (chapter 9-13)

Week 5) February 7, 9: What do scientists do all day?

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Pp. 1-44; 60-83; 94-100; 180-190; 215-232. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.*

Week 6) February 14, 16: Learning to see: image production and interpretation

Lynch, Michael. 1988. "The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences.” Human Studies, 11(2/3): 201-234.

Field trip to USC’s Center on Archeology (on campus)(February 16)

Week 7) February 21, 23: Objectivity and accuracy

Mackenzie, Donald. 1998. “Nuclear missile testing and the social construction of accuracy. Pp. 342-357, in Mario Biagioli The Science Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Daston, Lorraine. 1998. “Objectivity and the escape from perspective.” Pp. 110-123, in Mario Biagioli The Science Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

# Midterm assignment is distributed (February 23)

Part II: Remaking the worlds around us

Week 8) February 28, March 1: Rationalization and the rise of modern science

Weber, Max. 1958[1918]. “Science as a Vocation,” pp. 129-156, in From Max Weber, edited by Gerth, H.H. and W Wright Mills, Oxford: Oxford University Press.*

Evans, E. John. 2002. “Framework for understanding the thinning of a public debate.” Pp. 11-44 in John H. Evans Playing God: Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Film screening: “The Day After Trinity”

Week 9) March 6, 8: The invention of nature:

Cronon, Wiliam.1996. “The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature.” Pp. 69-90 in William Cronon (ed) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.*

Helford, Reid. 1999. “Rediscovering the resettlement landscape: making the oak savanna ecosystem ‘real.’ Science, Technology and Human Values, 24(1): 55-79.

# Midterm assignment is due (March 8)

# First essay assignment is due.

Week 10) March 13-15: Spring recess

Week 11) March 20, 22: Mixing nature and society: genetically modified organisms in agriculture

Lezaun, Javier. 2004. “Pollution and the use of patents: a reading of Monsanto v. Schmeiser.” Pp. 135-158, in Nico Sther (ed.), Biotechnology: Between Commerce and Civil Society. New Brunswick: Transaction.*

Millstone, Erik, Eric Burnner and Sue Mayer. 1999. “Beyond ‘substantial equivalence.” Nature, 401: 525-526.

Week 12) March 27, 29: Mixing nature and society: genes and patenting in biomedical research

Skloot, Rebecca. 2006. “Taking the Least of You.” The New York Times, April 16.*

Heller, Michael and Rebecca Eisenberg. 1998. “Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research,” Science, 280: 698-701.

Week 13) April 3, 5: Making up people: the case for dynamic nominalism

Hacking, Ian. 1998. “Making up people.” Pp. 161-171 in Mario Biagioli The Science Studies Reader. London: Routledge.

Week 14) April 10, 12: Making up people: the genetic construction of groups

Navon, Daniel. 2011. “Genomic designation: how genetics can delineate new phenotypically diffuse medical categories. Social Studies of Science 41(2): 203-226.

Week 15) April 17, 19: War making and the digital age

Edwards, Paul. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in cold War America. Cambridge: MIT Press. (selection)*

Lenoir, Timothy. 2003. “Programming theaters of war: gamemakers as soldiers. Pp. 175-198, in Robert Latham (ed.) Bombs and Bandwidth: The Emerging Relationship between IT and Security. New York: New Press.*

Field Trip to The Institute of Creative Technology (Santa Monica)

Week 16) April 24, 26: Simulating the fetus and the second life of eugenics

Ilpo, Helén. 2004. Technics over life: risk, ethics and the existential condition in high-tech antenatal care. Economy and Society, 33:1, 28-51.

# Final assignment is distributed (April 26)

#Final assignment is due (May 4—in KAP 352 at noon)

If time would permit, somewhere along the semester:

Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download