Trials too slow to behold Error or vice versa

9-14-14

Blog #6

Maria Kozdroy

Disclaimer: This is to be used as a response to class readings and discussions.

Trials too slow to behold Error or vice versa

            Trial and error learning has been around a very long time.  You first learn about it as a kid in elementary school and most certainly will use it your whole life.  This way of learning becomes more crucial as you grow up.  When implementing new innovations into society, trial and error learning is greatly needed, with the means of hopefully finding out an appropriate pace that an innovation can enter society.  I believe that an innovation should be implemented as long as a good understanding of the disadvantages are understood.  Even though more may arise, the optimistic view should take precedence. 

            There are several parameters associated with implementation.  Many significant properties of how a society is run will first be shown through multiple trials of an innovation.  The society’s ability to “monitor, diagnose, and correct errors that inevitably occur in all human activities” will all be explored.  After that, what if all the results show that there are no problems with following measures?  Does that necessarily mean, full implementation is ready instantly?  Yes.  I believe that the risk should be taken.  If anything bad evolves from it more research and development will be needed, yet the innovation will continue its main reason of why it began being used in the first place.

Nanotechnology, geoengineering, and synthetic biology, all appear to have many strong promises to ameliorate society; however, still a number of problems associated with each.  All three of the technologies listed above have been worked on for quite a few years now, and are slowly being implemented into society, yet the change is not as “explosive” as desired.  And perhaps the innovators of these technologies want to speed up implementation, there just might be violent break outs over usage of these innovations and fall of human health.  How can an agreed upon promise ever be achieved?  For example, nanoparticles seem very convincing—super small particles that can help clean water to make healthier to drink.  Who wouldn’t start using them?  The problem is the health concerns that follow it.  If implemented in third world countries at this moment, more cases of mesothelioma or other related diseases possibly might arise.  However, if not implemented, death from unsafe water will continue.  Through trial, researchers have been learning the pros and cons to nanoparticles.  The error still beholds until the nanoparticles are used on a more widespread basis.  When will the error fully be discovered though?  Will it be too late?  No need to wait, help is needed as soon as possible.

            In conclusion, Woodhouse states the overall point is that, “An overly rapid pace can obscure defects in design and implementation of technological innovation, making it difficult to perceive accurately what is happening, difficult to propose and debate alterations, and difficult to implement ameliorative plans,” and an equally negative point of why innovation too slow is not beneficial either.  It is difficult to comprehend which is better, a slower or more rapid pace; both have their advantages and infamous disadvantages.  Will a balance between both ever exist?  Should society as a whole slow down to allow more time to develop?  Or should innovation quickly lead the way?

 

Sources:

 Chapter 5 of Woodhouse STS Text

http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/Why%20technology%20assessment2011.pdf