opencopy.org

A. Introduction

The course that you are about to take is an exciting one because it is part of a brand new academic field. That field is so new in fact, that it has only been around really since the 1960s, although there were earlier studies that certainly paved the way. The field you are about to study is called Science and Technology Studies or STS for short. Those who teach and write in this field believe that science and technology are complex social constructs that are continually influenced by and influence society. Science and technology, like all social phenomena give rise to a host of political, ethical and epistemological questions. [Epistemology means how do we learn and know things that we believe to be true.]

Unlike traditional disciplines, like philosophy, sociology and history, STS is issue focused. It developed because scholars, thinkers and activists wanted to deal with issues in science and technology that they considered to be relevant and highly problematic, such as:

1. How can ordinary people hope to understand what science is all about when it is has become so specialized?
2. How is technology affecting our lives, our families, our communities?
3. Can a society that adheres to a vision of constant scientific and technological progress sustain vulnerable natural ecosystems?
4. How can science and technology be integrated - in healthy ways — into the overall context of human life?

This last point - i.e. the contextualization of science and technology within social life is the most significant question for STS. It is what makes STS a holistic approach.

We need to define the word holistic because it has become way to trendy, and is often associated with the granola and Birkenstocks crowd. Holistic in the sense of STS means looking at science and technology in terms of their total human effects, rather than simply as specialized and superior ways of knowing. It means looking for the ways that science and technology are socially mediated, in the hope that we can control and shape those forces in ways that benefit society, not simply materially but in terms of our entire quality of life.

In a methodological sense, terms like contextualized and holistic refer to the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of STS. STS is academically exciting (and difficult!) because it uses many disciplines to develop an understanding of science and technology as social processes. Of course, the discipline of sociology is key because it looks at human behaviours as social artifacts and deals with issues related to the communication of information and knowledge within groups. But history, philosophy and anthropology have also proved crucial to building a working set of assumptions, concepts and strategies in the STS field. History, for example, is needed to show us how scientific progress is made. Without history, we would not realize the ways that contemporary attitudes and decision making germinated and transformed scientific knowledge. History shows us that scientific and technological progress are anything but straightforward and that scientific and technological beliefs are closely related to other values in society. Philosophy shows us that the key concepts informing science and technology at any given time are not true in any absolute sense. These concepts or axioms are merely useful ways of organizing data. Thus, scientific and technological claims, however convincing, should always be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. Anthropologists have been extremely useful in pointing us to the culture of the tribe of scientists and technologists, who build up a shared body of beliefs that rule and routinize their lives, but are not readily apparent to outsiders.

STS obviously attracts a lot of scholars who are skeptical and even critical of the claims of technologists and scientists. Certainly, in its early beginnings in the 1960s, STS was a magnet for those who were critical of the system that allowed scientists and technologists so much power over individuals and that seemed to be eradicating the vestiges of community in order to serve the goals of a more rationalistic, bureaucratic and consumerist society. Many of the early practitioners of STS were also concerned to illuminate the connection between science and technology, on the one hand, and unequal power relations in society, on the other hand. Science and technology were seen as the tools by which corporations and military complexes were increasing the control of the rich few over the many.

The power of technoscience to erode traditional democratic institutions and to reinforce the hegemony of the powerful will always be key themes in STS. Moreover, STS is like Environmental Studies, in so far as it will always have close connections with activists who want to take power back from the scientists and technologists. But it would be a mistake to view those practicing in the field of STS as a bunch of activists with a potentially closed-minded agenda. Over the past four decades, STS has come to include a wide variety of scholars with different interests and values. The key players in the field today don’t show either “unbridled enthusiasm for, nor absolute rejection of, science and technology.” Rather, they seek “to walk the line of judicious analysis and thoughtful application between the poles of untempered optimism and nihilistic pessimism.

This balanced approach makes good sense. It is stupid to believe that science and technology are perfect systems, or even that they can fix all of the problems that they cause. There have simply been too many negative consequences from nuclear waste, toxic chemicals, medicines with horrific side effects, pesticides to believe all of the promises of those who seek funding for scientific enterprises. With respect to technology, it is becoming clear that, at least in some ways, new technologies complicate rather than simplify our lives and cause social dislocation and tragedy by virtually overnight eliminating jobs and professions that have lasted for hundreds of years. There’s lots of evidence to suggest that new technologies have increased the gap between the rich and the poor and between the advanced and developing nations in ways that threaten to cause social revolution and global hostility. One doesn’t have to be a Luddite to see that scientific and technological progress can damage our quality of life.

The Luddites

Luddites refer to an organized group of rural rebels in eighteenth-century England who broke agricultural machines that they thought were destroying jobs. The term Luddite entered the English language as one that referred to people who naively thought that they could stop progress. This is probably unfair to the Luddites who were not opposed to machinery per se but who wanted machinery to be introduced gradually and in ways that would help rather than hurt the majority of the population. We’ll explore a different interpretation of Luddism later on in the course.

On the other hand, most of us would agree that science and technology have brought some genuine benefits into our lives. Medical discoveries, for example, means that, many formerly deadly childhood diseases have been eradicated and improved treatments allows many of us to live longer and more productive lives. Most of us academics couldn’t easily work without our computers and word processors. And life would be a lot more difficult without our television sets, compact disc players, and microwaves.

The issue for scholars in STS is that none of these benefits are unequivocal. Television is not a neutral medium but one that relates to issues of consumerism, violence and even physical health; compact discs and the ease of copying raise all kinds of questions about ownership and intellectual property; new appliances are only helpful to the extent that they increase time for more valuable leisure pursuits. When connected to the values a consumerist society, the desire for new appliances and gadgets can be more oppressive than helpful. Understanding both the pros and the cons of science and technology is the goal of STS practitioners. Sometimes, as in the case of television, the factors can be so complex that analysis requires conceptualizing the problem at a high level and incorporating statistical and other kinds of information from a number of fields.

The reason why it has been so easy to label those in the STS field as nay Sayers and even as Luddites is an interesting one. During the nineteenth-century, Europeans and North Americans witnessed the progress made by science and technology and fell into the trap of believing that such progress was inevitable. This positivistic approach, of course, was assiduously promoted by those who wanted government and public support for scientific and technological research, which can be very expensive. It took a lot to break through this false confidence because optimism is always a pleasant and self reifying attitude to have. What started people thinking differently, of course, was the obvious toll that unquestioning progressivism was having on the environment that gave rise to the environmental movement of the 1970s and events like Earth Week, where, for the first time, prominent politicians condemned the “runaway technology” that had lead to bare forests, poisoned water, and contaminated air. At the same time, writers like Rachel Carson and activists like Ralph Nader pointed to the process by which the research activities of large corporations was endangering the health of our communities. By the 1980s, terms like sustainable development had entered into our vocabulary, and allowed people to look at science and technology in a more balanced way.

By the new millennium, it was possible to even find some of the movers and shakers in government and business talking about sustainability and the human control of science and technology. For example, Maurice Strong’s book Where On Earth Are We Going? Is an example of a savvy businessman and politico advocating sustainability as a good business proposition and global regulation as the only way to control the uneven development being caused by technology.

But it is difficult to undo a century of brainwashing. The corporate mentality is still overwhelmingly positivist and progressivist, concerned much more with the profits accruing from scientific and technological development, than with any negative consequences that might result from unbridled progress. Scientists, engineers and technicians still don’t receive any, or precious little, training to broaden their awareness of the social consequences of their activities. They tend to be suspicious of those in STS who question their activities without ever having had to go through the rigours of scientific or technical training. On the plus side, many scientists, engineers and computer professionals are sufficiently aware of the gaps in their training, and the social implications of what they do. Thus, for example Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) was established in 1983.

B. Key Disciplines in the Field

Earlier I suggested that STS was a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary field. It is multidisciplinary in the sense that the issues involved are too complex and multifaceted be dealt with by one discipline alone. It is interdisciplinary in the sense that disciplinary practitioners share an issue based approach and look for ways to contextualize science and technology. The disciplines have, however, made quite distinctive contributions to the field and helped to establish its intellectual merits.

i. Philosophy

Without the philosophy of science it would have been difficult to create a field like STS. During the nineteenth and twentieth century, it was customary to treat science as a positivistic truth seeking activity that 1) had a tight logical structure; 2) began with sensory or perceptual experience; and 3) slowly and carefully built careful arguments. In other words, science was the best and most careful method for arriving at truth.

Philosophers of science, however, began to question that assumption by looking more closely at the nature of scientific theories and arguments. They discovered that, rather than building a careful and logical argument, scientists often built their theories, either on the theories of other scientists or in relation to theories in the social domain. Thus, for example, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was not so much based on his observations of finches and other exotic wildlife in the Galapagos Islands, as on Thomas Malthus’ theory of population expansion and contraction. The survival of the fittest was a theory that related to the political and social observations on the poor in the nineteenth century rather than biological organisms.

The philosopher of science who would have the most profound impact on STS went by the name of Thomas Kuhn. In a famous work entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn suggested that scientific progress was anything but unilinear. In fact, scientific progress lurched from one framework to another. These frameworks or paradigms were completely different ways of looking at the world. Copernicus viewpoint was radically different from Ptolemy’s; Einstein’s theory of relativity was as different from Newton’s as, if I may play upon the expression, oranges from apples. Paradigms or organizing theories were ways of looking at the work - “patterns of belief or practice - different gestalts if you will.

Most scientists do not question the theoretical frameworks or patterns of belief within which they work. They simply make themselves busy solving problems. That is what Kuhn called normal science. Within any theory, there are anomalies or problems that need to be solved. A certain amount of progress is made by solving these problems, but not enough to explain the nature of scientific discovery. It is when these anomalies begin to challenge the paradigm and scientists debate that a revolutionary situation occurs, where science moves to a completely new platform. This progress is anything but unilinear, gradual and evolutionary building on the past. It is a fight for intellectual dominance, where positions are taken for all sorts of reasons. One paradigm is not necessarily better than another, it just meets certain needs and satisfies the aesthetic tastes of some influential members of the scientific society.

This philosophical analysis seriously weakened the positivistic claims of science. It made science a much more relativistic and antirealistic activity. It showed that chance, values and perceptions all played their part in the scientific enterprise. Moreover, it showed that most scientists were not fully cognizant of what was going on in their discipline when they invoked the scientific method or talked about hypothesis testing. Scientists, in other words, often had false consciousness about what they did. Sometimes philosophers understood the scientific enterprise better than the scientists themselves.

Thus began a trickle and then a flood of scholars from other disciplines, examining and explaining what scientists actually did, rather than what they thought they did. Virtually all of these writings demonstrated that scientists were no different from other knowledge makers. They had no specially claims to superior knowledge. Their prestigious knowledge was socially constructed and based largely on faith.

ii. Sociology

Once the philosophers of science had demonstrated the relativistic and belief elements in science at its very highest levels, it was possible to examine science as a socially constructed enterprise with linkages to other parts of society. Whereas early sociologists of science tended to fall for the line that science was a tight discipline with a special power for arriving at truth, those who read Kuhn began to examine the scientific community as a group within society that was influenced by social values.

Some of these investigators took the approach that science was a social activity like any other. And, like all other social activities, its values were relativistic rather than positivistic. The problem with making science the same as any other way of arriving at knowledge was that it tended to obscure the fact that scientists did deal with understanding nature and that the natural environment did impose certain strict conditions on the manufacture of knowledge. A novelist can create any kind of world he wants, but nature is quite another matter. While we may not know exactly what nature is, and it is misleading to think of nature, i.e. biology, as completely deterministic, there are limits to the ways that we can understand and change nature.

Most sociologists understand this very well. Rather than criticize the scientific enterprise, therefore, what they concentrate on doing, is studying science in action and illuminating the social choices that can be made with respect to the deployment of science or technology. When hidden away from investigation, the social choices made by scientists and technologists are obscured. What society is presented with is a complete and closed package - what sociologists call a black box - that is impervious to change.

Sociologists want to prevent the creation of black boxes, or if they are created, sociologists of science want to reopen them. Nuclear energy, for example, was presented to the public as the only logical choice to meet the energy needs of the future. Scientists and government supporters routinely dismissed those who challenged the black box of the nuclear agenda as naïve or ignorant. By showing that the nuclear choice was a social choice, and by pointing out that there were many other technical and non-technical approaches that social leaders could have taken to deal with the energy problem, sociologists have widened the debate on science and technology related issues.

iii. History

Historians were the first to suggest that the serious study of science and technology was a worthwhile enterprise. In fact, the term scientist was invented by the historian William Wherwell, in 1837 to define those engaged in the inductive sciences. For many years, this history was a kind of hagiography - a creation of scientific pioneers and heroes - who defined great science and contributed to its progress. This is now referred to as an internalist account of science.

By the 1960s, and particularly after the publication of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, historians realized that there was an opportunity to put science, not only in its social context, but in its historical context as well. Where historians were particularly insightful was in elucidating the nature of scientific controversies in the past and showing that the winners of the great historical scientific battles, such as Boyle and Lavoisier, were not more scientific than the losers, such as Hobbes and Priestly. Battles in science that had profound results were highly political, and changes in science owed much more to cultural factors present at the time than to the quality of the arguments used.

Where historians made their major contribution, however, was not in the history of science but the history of technology. Both the general public, and many of the early historians of science viewed technology as the practical application of scientific discovery. In general, engineering and technology was held in lower esteem than science and, if paid any attention at all, was basically viewed in a positivistic, progressive and internalist light, with no reference to social context or effects. Lewis Mumford, an architectural historian, was the first to view technology from a “human direction and cultural context” in his famous and influential work Technics and Civilization. For the first time, technology was looked at as an element of human culture that could be used for good or ill depending on social decisions.

Interestingly, it was the medieval historians who most clearly demonstrated the complex interconnections between culture and technology. In 1962, Lynn White showed how the warrior values of feudal and chivalric society led to an emphasis on shock combat that inspired the development of the saddle and stirrup - a major development that allowed for more control over horses in warfare and an effective cavalry. Similarly, in 1983, Ruth Cowan demonstrated that the invention of labour saving devices actually increased, rather than decreased, the work of women in the home and transformed a service oriented society into a consumer society. Thomas P. Hughes, in Networks of Power, written in the same year showed how electrical systems reflected and reinforced the status quo in the United States, Germany and Great Britain.

These and other historical works encouraged sociologists and philosophers to turn their interest to technology as something at least as important in its relation to culture and society as science. Sociologists and philosophers as profound as Jacques Ellul, Ortega y Gasset and Martin Heidegger began to explore the essential nature of technology or technique. Ellul, for example, argued that, while primitive technologies supported human society, modern technology exhibited a preoccupation with technique over humanity and began its career of controlling and manipulating we humans. For Ellul, modern technique was becoming independent from the control of social groups - even the economically and politically powerful - and running all our lives. In contrast, other Marxist influenced philosophers and political theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci, argued that technology was the most important tool for hegemony.

The study of technology, in other words, went from being a second class academic activity, to the forefront of an analysis of modern society. The interest in technology shows no signs of abating. In recent years, a host of books like Autonomous Technology and The Whale and the Reactor examine technology as forms of life that have their own politics, culture, and raison de’etre. Many writers are eager to warn us that we have to wake up and smell the power and impulse of technology, if we are ever going to control it. This concern about controlling its sinister or negative effects has made the subject of technology of considerable interest to those working in ethics. Ian Barbour’s Ethics in an Age of Technology (1992), for example, argue that we need to develop a new kind of ethics for the technological age that is completely different from the one that worked in the industrial age.

C. The Nature of the Interdiscipline

All of these writings have contributed to the maturity of STS as a vibrant scholarly field. They also suggest that STS will continue to be a multidisciplinary enterprise in juxtaposition to the more traditional disciplines. Multidisciplinarity implies the ability to use and transcend more than one disciplinary framework in order to examine issues and contextualize science and technology. Occasionally, STS has been able to completely transcend the limitations of disciplines in order to create its own formulations. A case in point is looking at technology and science as self-contained general systems that continually aim to be autonomous or self-contained (i.e. to create black boxes that are impenetrable to anyone but insiders).

But you will never really taste the flavour of STS by looking at it only as a multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary activity. In recent years, STS has shown signs of coming of age as a holistic and interdisciplinary approach that combines methods and approaches in a coherent way. In other words, STS is a community of scholars with a certain approach that you will find in the majority of their writings. Some of these I’ve already mentioned, but it is useful to put them together as a package:

i. Contextualization

All STS scholars and activists constantly seek to contextualize science and technology. Rather than looking at these activities as unique, these writers and thinkers want to show that science and technology are human activities, subject to human values.

ii. Social-Constructivism

Most of those working in the STS field believe that the way to look at all forms of knowledge - including science and technology - is as social constructions Some would go so far as to say that all so-called reality is socially constructed and, hence, relative to the values of social groups.

iii. Interdisciplinarity

STS practitioners, while usually initially trained in one primary discipline, view traditional disciplinary boundaries as arbitrary barriers to understanding problems. Thus they are extremely willing to borrow concepts, methodologies and problem solving techniques from a range of disciplines. They may be sociologists, historians, philosophers or ethicists, but they tend to continually interact with one another much more than with the people in their own disciplines. They have created their own professional organizations and journals that reflect these concerns for collaboration and interdisciplinarity. Sometimes this methodological sharing is criticized by more traditional disciplinary scholars.

iv. Holism

Although the term holism is most commonly applied to those working in environmental studies, it also characterizes STS scholars. Because STS researchers want to see the whole picture, and look at the interconnections within systems, their approach is highly integrative and synthetic. This sometimes makes it difficult to locate a common core in the field and makes it difficult for traditional scholars to regard STS as a discipline.

v. A Practice and Democracy Oriented Community

In recent years, as STS became more mature, it began to become a more theoretical and less practical discipline. However, STS is likely to remain a much more practical and politicized community because much of its original impulse was to demonstrate that science and technology are cultural and social products, and like all such products, should be subject to human evaluation and control. A huge impulse in STS, therefore is to democratize modern scientific and technological culture “by engaging more citizens in political deliberations about these activities. By privileging the societal factors shaping technoscience, STS implicitly, and often explicitly, wants to take science and technology out of the hands of the scientists and technocrats.

vi. High-Church and Low-Church

Even the closest communities have their differences. High-Church and Low Church refers to those whose religious worship is more elitist or more popular. In STS, the elitists are those who favour a more neutral and scholarly approach to scientific and technology studies. The more popular group are those activists who are determined to challenge the control of those who shape our scientific and technological society, particularly the “hegemonic powers of business and the state”. Between the High-Church and the Low-Church, there have been numerous skirmishes in recent years because: 1) the members of the High-Church sometimes find the activists insufficiently neutral, and 2) the members of the Low-Church think that the more theoretically minded researchers do not recognize the urgency of the problems associated with modern science and technology.

vii. Educating the Public

Associated with these communal differences is the issue of the public. Educating the public about science and technology - so that they can contribute intelligently to decisions that effect them - has always been a component of STS. This information sharing, however, can take different forms. Some believe in a highly democratic sharing of information with all interested groups in the community - the democratization of learning. Some focus on scholarship and the training of graduate students in research that they expect to be adapted in practical ways by others to solve human problems. Recently, STS has begun to focus its energies on educating the scientists, engineers and computer specialists themselves on their social responsibilities.

D. The Critics of STS

One of the sure signs that a field is growing in maturity and significance is the negative response of those who feel threatened by its findings. In the case of STS the major attack has come from exactly where one would expect it - the science and technology community. While there are movements within the scientific and technological community that parallel STS, particularly those professional groups that are concerned about the social responsibility of scientists, engineers and technologists, there are also many who regard the writings of STS scholars as a threat to their discipline.

These attacks are largely what one would expect. Many scientists and technicians believe that STS practitioners have a poor or soft understanding of science and technology. They are particularly annoyed by the activist or Low-Church members of the community, whose attack is the most virulent and whose scholarship is the most superficial. Some scientists have tried to stereotype the entire STS community as flaky and dangerous.

A more serious criticism is that STS undermines serious science and technology by rendering those enterprises relativistic. In other words, STS researchers appear to deny that there is a serious core to professional activity in science and technology and to paint the scientist or technician as someone who is making up nature. While there are elements of this sort of stereotyping within the STS community, however, it would be more accurate to say that the mainstream and most highly regarded members of the field seriously attempt to maintain the impartial and judicious approach of scholars. As mentioned earlier, these writers appreciate both the pros and cons of science and technology rather than painting these activities as diabolical.

The proof is in the pudding. Most of the journals and publications that are respected in the STS field are adjudicated by serious scholars with very high standards for accuracy. The fact that many STS writings are critical of the secrecy and autonomy of scientific and technological activity does not imply partiality, but simply reflects the fact that science and technology have become too insulated from social observation and immune to cultural values. The latter view is not held only by those working in the STS field, but also by many professional scientists, engineers and technicians. Science and Engineering Faculties themselves have accepted that there is a problem by instituting their own courses in social responsibility, ethics and the human effects of science and technology. To be sure, these are considered soft courses by many faculty and students, but they reflect the recognition of genuine problems of the kind that STS scholars were the first to explore.

It would seem, therefore, that scientists and STS scholars should be able to come to some kind of truce. Unfortunately, the so-called science wars heated up a little recently when the chief opponent of STS, Alan Sokol, a physicist at New York University, had an article accepted in an unrefereed STS journal called Social Text. The article, entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” was a hoax, a send-up of some STS scholarship composed of satirical, postmodern gibberish. The fact that this parody was accepted in an unrefereed journal that most STS scholars would not regard as particularly important, and certainly not central to their field, did little to dissipate the embarrassment of the STS community when they found their field mocked in such an effective way.

Sokol’s caricature of the naïve feminist, postmodern and relativistic thinking of practitioners in the STS field does not need to be treated seriously. The most respected works in the field are composed by careful and insightful scholars who use these theoretical frameworks in moderation. They are hardly the quacks and posturing buffoons that Sokol and company picture them as being. But Sokol’s more fundamental based criticism - that STS scholars might understand something about social causes but they were ignorant about scientific content bears closer attention. In order for STS scholars to legitimately problematize science and technology, they have to pay closer attention to understanding the production of knowledge in the scientific community. They have to gain an insider’s understanding of the enterprise.

E. Conclusion

There are some positive signs that a greater communication between STS scholars and scientists is beginning, and this development could make the field even more dynamic and exciting during the new century. Greater discussion, of an amiable and a moderate kind, would go a long way to reducing what C.P. Snow has called the two polarized cultures of science and humanity.

Science and technology clearly have intrinsic power, but they are still “essentially and irredeemably human (and hence social) enterprises.” In order to affirm the human quality of these enterprises, STS needs to challenge the following prevailing myths that have too much power in the scientific and technological community. These myths are:

1. That more science and technology is necessarily a good thing.
2. That scientific research should be completely unfettered.
3. That the control over scientific and technological research should be left completely to the scientists and technicians themselves.
4. That scientific information is neutral and should be decisive in resolving economic, political and social debates.
5. That science is the search for truth, and that this search should not be restricted by ethical or cultural concerns.

Obviously, to challenge these myths is to present a problem for some vested interests among the scientific status quo.

The positive goal of STS scholarship should not be to increase the prejudice against science and technology. Dismantling myths may seem to be a negative enterprise, but its rationale is the creation of more informed leaders and the better understanding of some very serious issues by the public. In liberal-humanist terms that may sound a trifle old fashioned in the modern age, STS needs to focus on creating a civil society where the citizens can discus all issues of significance to their lives and their communities intelligently. For too long, science and technology have created black boxes to make themselves immune from such a discussion.

Where STS shows perhaps its greatest promise is in general education courses like the one that you have enrolled in. Here, we can begin to discuss and debate the issues related to the social significance of science and technology. Our’s is a safe laboratory where we can try out ideas and explore understandings that you can later take out of the classroom in order to help shape and control our technoscientific society. In order to be able to do this, you have to be willing to try to develop a broader understanding of the interrelations between ideas, machines and values. You have to learn to think outside of the black box. I hope that you will.

---

The notes presented here are for the AK NATS 1760.06 “Science, Technology and Society” course offered in the Fall/Winter Semester of 2001/2002 by the Atkinson College of York University, Toronto, Canada and taught by John Dwyer. The lectures are based on the following texts:

1. Martin Bridgstock et al, Science, Technology and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1998), ISBN 0-521-58735-2
2. Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster, Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life (New York, Routledge, 1999), ISBN 0-415-16115-0
3. Albert H. Teich, Technology and the Future (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000), ISBN 0-312-01885-1

For more about John Dwyer, visit: http://www.sayitagain.com/ivorytower/