|
No innovation without representation is a democratic ideal of ensuring that everyone involved gets a chance to be represented fairly in technological developments. Langdon Winner (Thomas Phelan Chair of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy, NY) states that groups and social interests likely to be affected by a particular kind of technological change ought to be represented at an early stage in defining exactly what that technology will be. It is the idea that relevant parties have a say in technological developments and are not left in the dark.〔Winner, Langdon. "Artifact/Ideas and Political Culture." Technology and the Future (1993): 283-92. Print.〕 It has been spoken about by current professor Massimiano Bucchi (Ph.D. Social and Political science, European University Institute, 1997) of the University of Trento in Italy.〔Bucchi, Massimiano. "No Innovation without Representation (A Parliament of Things for the New Technical Democracies)." http://www.fondazionebassetti.org/. 20 Dec. 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.〕 This ideal does not require the public to become experts on the topics of science and engineering, it only asks that the opinions and ideas be heard before making drastic decisions, as talked about by Steven L. Goldman (Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor in Humanities at Lehigh University).〔Goldman, Steven L. "No Innovation Without Representation: Technological Action in a Democratic Society." New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues (1992): 148-60. Print.〕 ==Arguments for no innovation without representation== Arguments for ''no innovation without representation'' stated by Carl Mitcham (Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and in the Science, Technology, and Society Program at Pennsylvania State University):〔Mitcham, Carl. "Justifying Public Participation in Technical Decision Making." IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 1 Jan. 1997: 40-46. Print.〕 # Experts cannot escape public influence. There will always be influence from corporations or outside sources. "Technoscientific decision making is never neutral or objective."〔ibid.〕 # Public participation will have a more beneficial long term affect than no participation. "Without public participation nothing will get done"〔ibid.〕 # Experts promote their own self-interest at the expense of the public. Justification of modern technology is that it is designed to promote human welfare. # Those that are affected by technological decisions should have a say in what affects them. # Moral autonomy is necessary. This is when "persons find their moral agency abridged when decisions that affect their lives are made heteronomously by others."〔ibid.〕 # Public participation will lead to better outcomes. The idea that the majority will make the decision that has the most positive impact on technology or themselves. # Education through participation is necessary. Individuals will only become more intelligent through participation. # Currently there is a lack of strong moral consensus. People have different feelings and different opinions and participation of a greater population will have the greatest positive affect on society. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「No innovation without representation」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|