Comments on: Beyond safety: some bigger questions about new technologies http://2020science.org/2009/12/15/miller/ Providing a clear perspective on developing science and technology responsibly Mon, 21 May 2012 14:01:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Nano’s social dimensions; science funding in Canada, kaput?; Cheryl Jones got it right « FrogHeart http://2020science.org/2009/12/15/miller/#comment-52041 Nano’s social dimensions; science funding in Canada, kaput?; Cheryl Jones got it right « FrogHeart Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:34:17 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2532#comment-52041 [...] nanotechnology (I posted about this on Nov.25.09) and on the other hand, there was this thoughtful essay by Georgia Miller on Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science blog (from the entry), Technological [...] [...] nanotechnology (I posted about this on Nov.25.09) and on the other hand, there was this thoughtful essay by Georgia Miller on Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science blog (from the entry), Technological [...]

]]> By: Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/2009/12/15/miller/#comment-40373 Andrew Maynard Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:45:39 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2532#comment-40373 The trick does seem to be in reaching this broader balance, where tech is one set of tools in a broader toolkit for - for want of a better phrase - improving quality of life. It also bothers me that tech clearly sells - like candy and kids (or fast food and... just about everyone) - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. How do we discern between the good and the simply gaudy tech in society without being patronizing or overbearing? (The answer to your question Hilary btw is me - naturally :-) ) The trick does seem to be in reaching this broader balance, where tech is one set of tools in a broader toolkit for – for want of a better phrase – improving quality of life.

It also bothers me that tech clearly sells – like candy and kids (or fast food and… just about everyone) – but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s good. How do we discern between the good and the simply gaudy tech in society without being patronizing or overbearing?

(The answer to your question Hilary btw is me – naturally :-) )

]]> By: Hilary Sutcliffe http://2020science.org/2009/12/15/miller/#comment-40349 Hilary Sutcliffe Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:24:07 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2532#comment-40349 I think it's a 'both.. and' not an 'either...or' - prioritising what tech can best do and using other mechanisms where it's not the best option. Trouble is, anti-tech feel it never is, pro-tech feel it always is. & who decides - the government, Andrew, FOE, the public, the scientists, everyone!!?? Maybe more answers later in the week!! I think it’s a ‘both.. and’ not an ‘either…or’ – prioritising what tech can best do and using other mechanisms where it’s not the best option.

Trouble is, anti-tech feel it never is, pro-tech feel it always is. & who decides – the government, Andrew, FOE, the public, the scientists, everyone!!??

Maybe more answers later in the week!!

]]> By: Ruth Seeley http://2020science.org/2009/12/15/miller/#comment-40341 Ruth Seeley Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:34:20 +0000 http://2020science.org/?p=2532#comment-40341 Funny, you know, but the world's most highly industrialized nations have already developed and successfully applied problem-solving approaches to their own industries - systems like 5S, Kaizans, other continuous improvement processes used in re-engineering. How to adopt and apply those systems globally, stop the political posturing and the short-term thinking and profiteering, and start to truly think of ourselves as global citizens in a meaningful way - i.e. one that leads to setting priorities and actually dealing with the problems we've created instead of just arguing about which is the one that should be tackled first and ending up doing nothing - is the biggest challenge we'll face in our lifetimes. So far I'm not overly encouraged by the response, although I see the various 'Without Borders' organizations as beacons of hope for a few reasons: the pragmatism of their approach; the global nature of their operations; and the fact that they seem to propagate ideas in an inevitably organic way as their members go back and forth between developing and industrialized nations. Funny, you know, but the world’s most highly industrialized nations have already developed and successfully applied problem-solving approaches to their own industries – systems like 5S, Kaizans, other continuous improvement processes used in re-engineering. How to adopt and apply those systems globally, stop the political posturing and the short-term thinking and profiteering, and start to truly think of ourselves as global citizens in a meaningful way – i.e. one that leads to setting priorities and actually dealing with the problems we’ve created instead of just arguing about which is the one that should be tackled first and ending up doing nothing – is the biggest challenge we’ll face in our lifetimes. So far I’m not overly encouraged by the response, although I see the various ‘Without Borders’ organizations as beacons of hope for a few reasons: the pragmatism of their approach; the global nature of their operations; and the fact that they seem to propagate ideas in an inevitably organic way as their members go back and forth between developing and industrialized nations.

]]>