Making Decisions about Technology

One part of organized irresponsibility is the neglect of responsibility for the public world constituted by technology when making decisions about technology. The other is the fact that rarely is anyone held to account for that neglect. 

In the final chapter I elaborate on how these aims could be achieved. I propose a new framework for making decisions about technology that has at its core a concern for the world. 

In Chapter 3 I argued that our goal when making decisions about technology should be to make the world a better home for human life on earth. 

Accurate prediction of the rate of nicotine metabolism based on CYP2A6/D6 genotype could make adjusting the dose of nicotine replacement to avoid side effects and ensure effectiveness much simpler. It may be that information technology could help in making decisions about the choice [63] and dose [64] of drug based on genetic data. 

From my discussion of what these criteria mean for technology, I suggest the following as principles on which more concrete policies to inform decisions about technology could be based. These are not rules for decision making, but indicators of what should be considered in deciding whether a technology helps to make the world a fit home for human life on earth. 

To help answer these questions I start this chapter with an examination of the various meanings of responsibility and discuss the nature of our responsibilities for things. I then examine how decisions about technology are currently made and point out the ways in which this leads to organized irresponsibility , particularly in the case of synthetic chemicals. Finally, I consider the limitations of risk assessment as a conception of responsible decision making. 

An important difference between buildings and what is normally considered as technology is that the latter lacks the fixedness to a particular location that buildings have. Decision making by local committees would therefore not be appropriate in the current economic and political system, decisions about technology have to be made at the national, or in some cases the international, level. However, there is still scope for a system modelled on that for built development. 

During your chemistry course this year, you will study the interactions among science, technology, society, and the environment. These interactions are abbreviated as STSE. Throughout the textbook—in examples, practice problems, activities, investigations, and features—STSE interactions are discussed. The issues that appear at the end of some units are especially rich sources for considering STSE interactions. In these simulations, you are encouraged to assess and make decisions about important issues that affect society and the environment. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, many different Army organizations are involved in making decisions about sites where non-stockpile chemical materiel is stored or recovered. Often, the site is a current military base or depot, where the primary decision maker is the base or depot commander. The role of the NSCMP is to develop treatment technology options and offer treatment services to decision makers at these sites. 

One of the most frequent criticisms about the role of public stakeholders in the RAP process is that public opinion is very often driven by one or more public interest groups that do not adequately reflect the views of the local public. This criticism emanates from both the Army and state regulators. Public stakeholders, for their part, often perceive that the Army—and, to a lesser extent, the states—makes decisions about, for instance, which technology should be used for a particular application and then seeks public approval after the fact. Public involvement is discussed more completely in Chapter 5 of this report. 

---