Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 525–538 | Cite as

What Next after Determinism in the Ontology of Technology? Distributing Responsibility in the Biofuel Debate

  • Philip BoucherEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article builds upon previous discussion of social and technical determinisms as implicit positions in the biofuel debate. To ensure these debates are balanced, it has been suggested that they should be designed to contain a variety of deterministic positions. Whilst it is agreed that determinism does not feature strongly in contemporary academic literatures, it is found that they have generally been superseded by an absence of any substantive conceptualisation of how the social shaping of technology may be related to, or occur alongside, an objective or autonomous reality. The problem of determinism emerges at an ontological level and must be resolved in situ. A critical realist approach to technology is presented which may provide a more appropriate framework for debate. In dialogue with previous discussion, the distribution of responsibility is revisited with reference to the role of scientists and engineers.

Keywords

Technical determinism Social determinism Critical realism Technology Biofuels Responsibility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am gratefully indebted to Supergen (Sustainable Power Generation), which has provided financial support for this work, and all those at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Manchester, particularly Paul Upham and Sally Randles. I also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.). (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
  3. Bijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelite and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. (2010). How is technology made? That is the question. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier, A. (1989). Scientific realism and socialist thought. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, H. (1981). Son of seven sexes: The social destruction of a physical phenomenon. Social Studies of Science, 11, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, D., Ashmore, M., & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elder-Vass, D. (2005). Emergence and the realist account of cause. Journal of Critical Realism, 4(2), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elle, M., Dammann, S., Lentsch, J., & Hansen, K. (2010). Learning from the social construction of environmental indicators: From the retrospective to the pro-active use of scot in technology development. Building and Environment, 45, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization, 12(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1995). On some failures of nerve in constructivist and feminist analyses of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20, 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartwig, M. (2007a). Intransitive, transitive and metacritical dimensions. In M. Hartwig (Ed.), Dictionary of critical realism. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hartwig, M. (2007b). Interdisciplinarity, etc. In M. Hartwig (Ed.), Dictionary of critical realism. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hartwig, M. (2007c). Agency. In M. Hartwig (Ed.), Dictionary of critical realism. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hinchliffe, S. (1996). Technology, power, and space: The means and ends of geographies of technology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14, 659–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houkes, W., & Meijers, A. (2006). The ontology of artefacts: The hard problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landeweerd, L., Osseweijer, P., & Kinderlerer, J. (2009). Distributing responsibility in the debate on sustainable biofuels. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawson, C. (2007a). Technology, technological determinism and the transformational model of social activity. In C. Lawson, J. Latsis, & N. Martins (Eds.), Contributions to social ontology. Routledge: Oxon.Google Scholar
  19. Lawson, C. (2007b). Technology. In M. Hartwig (Ed.), Dictionary of Critical Realism. Routledge: Oxon.Google Scholar
  20. Lawson, C. (2008). An ontology of technology. Techné, 12(1), 48–64.Google Scholar
  21. Lawson, C. (2010). Technology and the Extension of Human Capabilities. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, in press.Google Scholar
  22. Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. New Scientist. (2007). Editorial: Clearing up the confusion over biofuels. New Scientist, 2634, 3.Google Scholar
  24. NFU. (2007). NFU welcomes Proposals for the Long Awaited Obligation on Renewable Transport Fuel. National Farmers’ Union.Google Scholar
  25. Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson and Company.Google Scholar
  28. Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment. Science Communication, 8(2), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Supergen Bioenergy. (2010). British bio-energy news, Issue 10. Birmingham: Bio-Energy Research Group.Google Scholar
  30. The Independent. (2007). Beet that! Britain’s biofuel future takes off. November 27, 2007.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, P. (2008). The agricultural ethics of biofuels: A first look. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waelbers, K. (2009). Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wyndham, J. (1951). The day of the triffids. London: Michael Joseph.Google Scholar
  34. Zah, R., Faist, M., Reinhard, J., & Birchmeier, D. (2009). Standardized and simplified life-cycle assessment (lca) as a driver for more sustainable biofuels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, S102–S105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Institute of Innovation ResearchUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations