3.

How does society shape the direction of scientific research and technological
development?

The Connection Between Science, Technology, and Society

A number of people on Quora have asked how these three phenomena connect to one another. It’s an
interesting question, but the answer is not straightforward. One reason why answering the question is
so difficult is because all three have bidirectional relationships with each other: each one influences the
other. So that’s six different relationships.

Science and Technology

Science informs technological advancements. We rely on theories on physics, material science,

electricity, chemistry, etc to develop new technologies. Indeed, we’re still working to create a lot of
potentially useful materials that are predicted to exist, based on our current scientific theories, and the
more scientific theory develops, the more it can inform our technological advancements. Our ability to
create such powerful computers is informed by our science. Quantum computers are being developed,
based on our science on the topic, which will further our computing power by orders of magnitude.

But technology also changes how we do science. Think about the invention of the telescope. It vastly
changed our ability to conduct astronomical research. Space telescopes, probes like Voyager, the Cassini
probe and the Huygens lander, etc have done even more. Even more recently, technological
advancements have allowed us to create a virtual telescope the size of the Earth, which has allowed us
to actually photograph a black hole (or really the material around it).

I happened to pick astronomy as an example, but the influence technology has had on science is — well
— astronomical. Computing power, storage capacity, and so on has allowed for data science and the use
of big data in medical sciences, sociology, economics, and more. So the very computers that are being
developed, using scientific theory and evidence, also help us do scientific research.

Technology and Society

Of course, earlier technological revolutions such as the industrial revolution and the agricultural
revolution cannot be ignored either. The ability to create materials that we use in our everyday life, the
ability to feed a massive amount of people, and so on, are all thanks to the development of
technological innovations.

Of course, while technology has been a great boon for prosperity, it has also had some negative impacts.
It has produced quite a bit of pollution, though hopefully technology and science will cure that issue.
Probably the worst use of technology — and the science which informs its development — has been
weapons of mass destruction.

In the opposite direction, society drives technology and sometimes prohibits its development. I recently
finished a piece on the ethics of fiction writing, in which I touched on the importance that fiction has had
on inspiring new technology and warning of threats that we could face in the future. Society also drives
technological evolution through need. Very often a technology emerges because someone recognizes a
need for that technology.
Science and Society

Just as technology often develops because there is a need for it, science helps solve the needs of society.
While a major goal of science is to simply better our understanding, many people leverage science to
help solve real world problems in society.

The need for a better understanding of epidemics, for instance, drives our research of the topic. Science
also improves our understanding of society. Anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, and
so on, all help us better understand how society functions. Additionally, like with technology, society can
influence our theories, and their evolution. A desire to travel through time, or faster than the speed of
light is more than enough to spur on the development of theories that, if correct, would allow such
things.

Finally, because science alters our understanding of the world, it has had a significant impact on our
belief systems, our norms, and our values, as well as our daily behaviors. Germ theory, for instance, has
changed our sanitation habits and our hygiene, as well as our food safety protocols. Hand washing is an
essential habit that we have primarily because of our understanding of how pathogens spread. And it’s
just one of many ways in which scientific theory and evidence has changed our behavior.

A Trifecta

The science understanding of how the world functions alters how we behave. Technology alters how we
can behave. Society drives technological innovations and scientific inquiry. Science gives us insight into
what kind of technologies we could potentially create and how to create them, while technology allows
us to conduct further scientific research.

The three domains are so intimately connected that it is sometimes difficult to pull them apart. But
understanding how the three relate to each other is important, because each one drives the future of
the other.

Science and technology could not have developed in a vacuum. There has to be a support
base, both practically, culturally, and in terms of the mindset of people.

Developing and progressing science and technology is a very fortunate state; but it also has
drawbacks, such as a tendency to splinter the tribal and family structure of a society and
civilization asunder, and to erode some humanitarian and cultural values, assumptions, and
traditions. In this sense they may even contribute to the destruction of the social order.

Also the civilization in which science and technology arise and flourish needs to be
connected to the providential mainstream toward the realization of the ideal world, a world
of peace.
The emissary of peace is termed the “Messiah” in the Judeo-Christian faith tradition, but has
other designations in other religious streams. The main purpose of science and technology
is to serve as a prepared foundation for the truth, love, salvation, and peace of the Messiah
to spread rapidly to the whole world and facilitate the erection of the Kingdom of Heaven
on Earth.

If a civilization fails in this bid, then the whole foundation of science, technology,
engineering, industry, commerce, and prosperity breaks down, is dismantled by natural
forces, and the civilization returns to the dark ages and barbarianism.

We’re riding on a very fortunate wave right at this moment, and now (2020) is the greatest
opportunity humankind has ever seen, to finally realize the ideal world of peace where all
mankind are one family under God.

Because we always have problems to solve. Sometimes the problems are created by the
earlier solutions such as the pollution caused by the industrial revolution, but this does not
mean the industrial revolution itself was a mistake, it provided a net benefit to society and
the problems caused are just another opportunity to learn and grow. Progress is difficult,
but the cost of not advancing science and technology (such as during the Dark Ages) has
proven to be even worse.

Culture is formed by the shared values of a society. Values determine what is considered a
priority, what is appropriate or not, what is right and wrong.

Culture influences what is researched and what is not, what should science and technology
focus on and when. For instance: right now virology is getting a lot of attention and funding.

Culture also influences how science and technology are developed: what kind of methods
are preferred, how rigorous are the development processes, how quickly and what kind of
results should be demonstrated, how are progress reports written and disseminated.

Everything we do is influenced by culture; developing science and technology is no

exception. Scientists behave differently in different parts of the world, influenced by their
culture. Working on technology development can be quite different in China, Germany,
America, or Brazil.
By choosing the philosophy that determines the worldview of a world culture those values
will be core to the models of science. They will determine beforehand what is deemed
possible or impossible and evidence of those values being wrong will be ignored. The
acceptance of a worldview or philosophy DETERMINES the core values that will be mirrored
and manifest into your daily lives.

“Necessity is the mother of invention.” So said Plato (428 BC - 347 BC) in words to this effect
in his masterwork The Republic. We can apply this maxim to the development of science
and technology. Society needs a device. Science and technology are applied to invent it.
Science and technology are used to improve it. Science and technology are applied in
finding a substitute. Why? To satisfy an insatiable society . Therefore society has influenced
the development of science and technology by its demands. This is not saying that the
development of science and technology is entirely due to the demands of society. Other
factors, such as discovery, have also influenced the development of science and technology
but it is society that has influenced its application.
4. How do ethical considerations play a role in the intersection of
science, technology,and society?

THE ROLES OF ETHICS IN SCIENCE

A book devoted to advocating the infusion of ethics/values into the teaching of science
rests on the assumption that ethics and values play a significant role in science and that
ignoring this fact will diminish a student's comprehension of the true nature of the
scientific enterprise. But this is not an assumption that is accepted and appreciated by
most secondary school students, nor by all of their teachers. When asked about the
connection between ethics and science, many science teachers will make reference to
such issues as scientific fraud and plagiarism that have occasionally made dramatic
headlines. They will generally view such behavior as the exception rather than the rule
and profess a belief that science is for the most part an objective and value-free activity
practiced by honest, moral individuals. Our point is not to deny that fraudulent behavior
among scientists is unusual, but rather to emphasize the fact that science is the product
of human activity, and as such it inevitably involves a wide variety of value-laden
choices and judgements, many of which have ethical dimensions.
What is science? Professor John Ziman of the Imperial College of Science and
Technology, London, one of the most influential writers on the practice of science,
points out that definitions given by professional scientists, historians of science,
philosophers of science, and representatives of other related disciplines tend to
emphasize "different aspects of the subject, often with quite different policy
implications."(8) Philosophers might emphasize the methodological aspects of science
focusing on experimentation, observation and theorizing as elements of the means by
which reliable information about the natural world is gleaned through the practice of
science. Historians are prone to view science as the accumulation of knowledge,
stressing its archival aspect as a significant historical process worthy of special study.
Ziman concludes that: "...science is all these things and more. It is indeed the product of
research; it does employ characteristic methods; it is an organized body of knowledge; it
is a means of solving problems."(9)
The fact that the practice of science is a human social activity is a central theme of a
booklet entitled "On Being a Scientist," initially published in 1989. This booklet was
written by the Committee on the Conduct of Science under the auspices of the National
Academy of Sciences as a description of the scientific enterprise for students who are
about to begin to do scientific research. The reader is instructed that:
Scientists have a large body of knowledge that they can use in making decisions. Yet
much of this knowledge is not the product of scientific investigation, but instead involves
value-laden judgements, personal desires, and even a researcher's personality and
style.(10)
Debunked is the notion of a rigid Baconian scientific method by which scientists derive
truth about the universe by making observations with no preconceptions about what
they may discover. Instead the authors claim that:
...research is as varied as the approaches of individual researchers. Some
scientists postulate many hypotheses and systematically set about trying to weed
out the weaker ones. Others describe their work as asking questions of nature:
"What would happen if ...? Why is it that...?" Some researchers gather a great
deal of data with only a vague idea about the problem they might be trying to
solve. Others develop a specific hypothesis or conjecture that they then try to
verify or refute with carefully structured observations. Rather than following a
single scientific method, scientists use a body of methods particular to their work.
(11)
The booklet includes several real-life stories that illustrate the fallibility of scientists, and
the ways in which they can be influenced by personal or social values.
Mentioned as examples of the values that can distort science are attitudes regarding
religion, race and gender. Assurance is given that science has social structures and
mechanisms that tend to limit and correct the influences of such biases. The peer
review process, the requirement that experiments be replicable and the openness of
communication are claimed to serve this purpose. The booklet ends with a strong
appeal for scientists to exercise social responsibility. A second edition of this booklet,
revised by a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, was published in 1995 and
retains much of the discussion of the role of values in science.
The claim that the peer review process and openness of communication significantly
reduce the influences of bias in science assumes a set of historic norms for the
behavior of scientists that are less descriptive of scientific behavior today than when
they were codified by the eminent sociologist R. K. Merton in 1942. Merton's norms, as
expressed by Ziman(12) include the principles of communalism (that science is public
knowledge available to all), universalism (there are no privileged sources of scientific
knowledge), and disinterestedness (science is done for its own sake). In today's world,
where the vast majority of scientific research is funded by corporate or other private
interests which often place rigid restrictions on the publication of scientific results and
the exchange of scientific information, and where academic scientists find themselves in
a highly competitive environment, these norms can no longer be viewed as generally
applicable to the practice of science.
The tendency of many scientists and teachers of science to portray science and
scientists in an idealistic and unrealistic manner is often motivated by belief that this will
result in a greater willingness on the part of students and the public to accept scientific,
rational thought as a powerful tool for learning about, and understanding, the world and
the universe. There is no evidence to support this view. On the contrary, when students
are taught that scientists are mere mortals who are subject to the same social pressures
and temptations, in their work as well as in their private lives, that influence all human
endeavor, they are more likely to identify with scientists. The powerful methods that
science offers for seeking knowledge about the universe then become personally
accessible rather then a set of exotic tools available only to the members of an elite
priesthood.
Recent surveys have shown that despite a renewed interest in mysticism, and growing
concern about the contribution of technological development to environmental
degradation, public regard for science and technology remains very high. This is
particularly true in the United States and other industrialized nations, but also in the
developing world. While a high regard for science is certainly a desirable public attitude,
it can be associated with an uncritical acceptance of any conclusion or opinion that is
presented in the name of science. This is contrary to the essence of the scientific
approach to knowledge, which seeks to engender a critical/skeptical attitude and
recognizes that all of the results of science are to be viewed as subject to further
verification and revision.
By presenting science to students as the product of the work of fallible human agents,
rather than as a body of unassailable factual knowledge about the universe, gleaned by
means of value-free observation and deduction, we can teach students proper respect
for science, while nurturing an appropriate attitude of skepticism. Bringing scientists
down from a pedestal is necessary if students are to recognize their own humble efforts
in school science laboratories as requiring the same honesty in the reporting of
observations and treatment of data that they assume was employed in the deduction of
the scientific knowledge contained in their textbooks.

EXAMPLES OF ETHICS AND VALUES ISSUES IN

SCIENCE
In an essay entitled "The Ethical Dimensions of Scientific Research"(13) the widely
published logician and philosopher of science Nicholas Rescher attacks the view that
science is value free, and shows how ethical considerations enter into many aspects of
the practice of scientific research. Rescher describes ethical problems and issues in
science under several headings. We will use Rescher's headings, describing the major
ethical issues that he discusses, and adding a few that he doesn't mention:

 Choosing research goals.

Rescher states, "Perhaps the most basic and pervasive way in which ethical problems
arise in connection with the prosecution of scientific research is in regard to the choice
of research problems, the setting of research goals, and the allocation of resources
(both human and material) to the prosecution of research efforts."(14) At the national
level, he asks whether we are morally justified in committing such a large fraction of the
federal research budget to space exploration at the expense of larger appropriations for
the advancement of knowledge in medicine, agriculture and other fields of technology
bearing directly on human welfare. Other major value- laden choices that he doesn't
mention are the balance between the funding of military versus non-military research
and between the funding of fossil fuel and nuclear energy investigations as opposed to
those involving renewable energy sources. A recent issue that has divided the public,
politicians and the scientific community is the extent to which "BIG SCIENCE" projects
like the supercollider subatomic particle accelerator or the Human Genome Project
should be funded as compared to funding a broader variety of more modest "small"
science endeavors.
At the institutional level of the department, laboratory or research institute, Rescher
mentions the issue of support for pure, or basic, versus applied, or practical, research.
Today, with an increasing fraction of research being done by, or funded by, industry the
constraints imposed by corporate interests on the choice of research projects, or on the
direction of the research is becoming an increasingly significant ethical issue.
At the individual level Rescher cites difficult, and even painful, ethical decisions that
often must be made. These include the choice between pure and, frequently more
lucrative, applied research, and for those who choose applied science, such questions
as whether to work on military projects. Recently the media have publicized the moral
dilemma of whether former researchers for the tobacco industry should violate secrecy
agreements by revealing that the industry knew more about the addictive nature of
nicotine than was claimed in sworn testimony by company spokespeople.

 Staffing of research activities.

Rescher includes under this heading the ethical concerns that arise when scientists
become administrators of large sums of public money that are needed to fund most
forms of contemporary scientific research. As he points out, the increasing
administrative responsibilities imposed on scientists is an ethical issue, in and of itself,
because it impairs a scientist's ability to devote his or her energies to the practice of
science. In research at universities, the employment of graduate students to do
research raises issues about whether the assigned research is the optimal work in
terms of the education and the training of the student. An additional ethical concern
related to staffing a research group is the fact that women and minority members have
historically been under-represented in scientific research. Making good on commitments
to equal opportunity is a serious moral obligation of the scientist as research
administrator.

 Research methods.

The ethical concerns related to the use of human subjects and animals in research are
the focus of Rescher's remarks about issues related to the methods of research. We will
discuss the topic of human subjects in some detail, both in the next chapter and in
connection with the case study about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in Chapter 4.
The heightened public concern about animals as research subjects resulting from the
animal rights movement is an issue familiar to most science teachers, particularly
biology teachers. The deletion of experiments using animals in school science
laboratories, due to moral objections by teachers, students, parents or the community,
is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.
Other ethics and values issues related to research methods include such questions as
whether a double-blind protocol is needed in cases where subjective interpretations of
research data may influence experimental results. Additionally, there are issues related
to the manipulation and presentation of data, many of which are discussed in
connection with the Millikan case study in Chapter 4. The use of placebos in tests of the
effectiveness of a new drug can raise ethical issues associated with the withholding of a
potentially effective treatment of a serious illness.

 Standards of proof and the dissemination of research findings

Rescher discusses the issue of the amount of evidence a scientist must accumulate
before announcing his or her findings. As he states, "This problem of standards of proof
is ethical, and not merely theoretical or methodological in nature, because it bridges the
gap between scientific understanding and action, between thinking and doing..."
Personal factors, such as the need to publish in order to advance his or her career
goals may tempt a scientist to exaggerate the certainty of scientific results. The fact that
positive results are often rewarded by increased funding from research sponsors
increases this temptation.
In most cases, the science establishment scorns the scientist who chooses to announce
his or her findings via public media before they have been published in a peer- reviewed
journal. As discussed by Rescher, there is good reason to be concerned about
premature publicity about findings that have not been accepted as valid by the scientific
community. Well known researchers or research institutions can use the
sensationalism, which is as much a characteristic of science reporting as other types of
journalism, to influence public opinion and governmental funding agencies. The media
emphasis on such values as the novel and the spectacular which, if translated into more
funds for this type of study, can distort the development of science.
Other types of ethical conflict, not mentioned by Rescher, may result from publication
standards. A scientist may be convinced that the results of a study are valid, and may
have significant, perhaps even urgent, social value, although they do not quite meet the
often rigid standards set by his or her peers. One such standard is the generally
accepted requirement that in order to be considered valid, a result derived from
statistical analysis of data must have less than a 5% chance of being a result of chance.
Suppose a scientist analyzes some geological data that show that some natural disaster
is likely to occur at the 93% rather than the 95% statistical confidence level. No
possibility exists of doing further studies that might increase the certainty of the result.
Peer reviewers at the relevant scientific journal reject the report because it fails the 95%
test. The scientist must make the decision whether to accept this judgment or risk the
opprobrium of colleagues and make the results known by seeking the help of news-
hungry science journalists.

 Control of scientific "misinformation".

Rescher affirms that scientists have a duty to control and suppress scientific
misinformation. This obligation extends to preventing erroneous research findings from
misleading their colleagues and, perhaps more urgently, to protect against the danger
that false results may endanger the health or welfare of the public.
On the other hand, Rescher warns against misusing this need to censor misinformation
in a way that stifles novelty and innovation. Too often in the history of science,
scientists, particularly those who are young and not yet well-established, have found it
very difficult to gain acceptance for revolutionary discoveries that do not fit within the
prevailing disciplinary paradigm.
Rescher also raises the issue of science versus pseudo-science. Whereas the need to
control misinformation would logically extend to pseudo-science, he points out that the
distinction between what is accepted as science and what some members of the
scientific community would label as pseudo-science is not always clear. As examples of
contemporary problems in this area are the scientific standing of various forms of extra-
sensory perception, herbal and other non-Western, "traditional" medicines, acupuncture
and the recent controversy over the validity of "cold fusion." Rescher urges caution to
those who would settle such disputes through censorship and suppression of views that
they fear might damage the public image of science. He suggests, instead that
scientists have faith that truth will "...win out in the market place of freely interchanged
ideas..."

 Allocation of credit for scientific research achievements.

For obvious reasons, scientists are no less interested than those in any other field of
endeavor in receiving appropriate credit for their work. Rescher mentions the bitter
disputes that have arisen over the years with regard to decisions about who should
receive credit for a particular discovery or invention. The agreement by the international
scientific community to give such credit to the scientist(s) whose report of the discovery
is first submitted to an appropriate journal has provided a means for resolving most, but
not all such disputes. The recent controversy over the discovery of the virus that causes
AIDS demonstrates that this procedure is not infallible, at least in cases where it may be
difficult to determine if research reports from different laboratories are describing the
same phenomenon. Furthermore since different laboratories frequently make nearly
simultaneous, independent discoveries of the same scientific result or phenomenon, the
question arises as to the ethical justification for giving all of the credit to the one who
just happens to be first to submit the results for publication.
As Rescher points out, the fact that since scientific work is usually a collaborative effort,
either within a single research facility, or involving several laboratories, the issue of
allocating credit can be very complicated. This has become an even more problematic
issue since Rescher first wrote his essay in 1965. In some fields, like high energy
nuclear physics, the list of authors can exceed ten, or even twenty. Cases where junior
colleagues or graduate students believe that a senior researcher has usurped credit that
they deserve are not uncommon. Even issues like the order of the names on a
published research article -- should they be listed alphabetically, in decreasing order of
the contribution made, or in order of seniority -- can result in controversy.
A current ethical issue related to credit, and to authorship of research reports, is the
extent to which a scientist whose name appears as an author should be held
responsible for all the data and results reported in a published paper. This issue
emerged from cases where data in a paper have been challenged as being wrong and
perhaps fraudulently represented. If the work is a collaborative effort, involving
researchers from different scientific disciplines, is it reasonable to expect all of them to
vouch for the entire content of the paper? If not, should each author's contribution be
clearly stated in the paper, or in a footnote?
One source of disputes concerning credit for research ideas and ownership of
intellectual property is the peer review process. The National Science Foundation
reports that accusations that a peer reviewer appropriated an experimental or
theoretical idea or result from a research proposal or paper he or she was sent to
evaluate, is the largest category of scientific misconduct complaints that it receives. Of
course, the number of such serious accusations is only a very small fraction of all the
proposals and papers that are reviewed.
This completes our discussion of ethical issues related to the practice of science under
the headings in Rescher's essay. It is by no means an exhaustive list of issues of the
types he discussed. There are also other important categories of ethical concerns not
mentioned by Rescher. For example, there are ethical concerns related to the relative
importance of cooperation and competition in scientific research, and the related issue
of the extent to which scientists are obliged to share their data. (This issue is discussed
in chapter 4 in connection with the case study on the discovery of the structure of DNA.)
Rescher explicitly states that he chose to ignore ethical issues related to societal uses
of science as opposed to those associated with the practice of science. He claims that
issues related to the exploitation of science "are not ethical choices that confront the
scientist himself." This very assertion has been a continuing subject of dispute, both
within the scientific community itself, as well as among philosophers, historians and
sociologists of science. Not only is the obvious point made that scientists are members
of society, and are therefore confronted by questions related to the social uses of
science, a more controversial ethical claim is made by those who take issue with
Rescher's disclaimer. They assert that scientists, because of their special knowledge,
and because of the support they demand from society, have a social obligation to
concern themselves with the uses that society makes of science, and to help the lay
public make informed choices about technological issues.
Independent of this question concerning the social responsibility of the scientist, we
believe that the introduction of ethical issues in the secondary school science curriculum
should definitely include those related to the social uses, as well as the "doing" of
science. Most students will not become scientists, but all students will need to
participate, as citizens, in making informed choices about the uses of science.
We will mention two major contemporary developments in which numerous ethics and
values issues related to the uses of science arise. The first is the rapidly developing
field of bioengineering, including the application of the powerful techniques associated
with modern genetics research. The results of the massive international Human
Genome Project will further expand the need to confront a long list of extremely
controversial social uses of this work. With increasing frequency, front page headlines
and prime time TV news stories draw public attention to these controversies. Should
society condone, or even encourage the cloning of animals, and perhaps human
beings? Should prospective parents be able to buy embryos, with specific genetic
pedigrees, for implantation into the woman's uterus? Should an individual's genetic
code be kept on file by the government, and if so, to whom should it be available?
A second contemporary development that poses numerous ethics and values choices
related to applied science is the worldwide concern about the potential conflict between
industrial development and the ecological health of the planet. The growing list of
serious local, regional and global environmental problems, including the pollution of air,
water and land, acid precipitation, soil erosion, stratospheric ozone depletion and global
warming, has spawned an increased sense of urgency among the world's people and
their political leaders about the present and future health of the earth's ecosystems.
Decisions concerning what to do about these problems involve an evaluation of the
scientific facts in the context of many other value-laden social and political factors.
Should the developing nations of the world be denied the benefits of the technologies
that have resulted in serious pollution problems as a result of their widespread use by
the developed nations? Is it appropriate to base environmental decisions on cost-benefit
analysis when this requires measuring such human values as life, health and beauty in
economic terms? Should the use of a chemical be banned when it is estimated to cause
one death in a million, ten thousand or one thousand exposed people? What roles
should scientists, political leaders and informed citizens play in making environmental
decisions?
Further discussion of ethics and values issues related to the "doing" and "using" of
science will be found in connection with the examples used in Chapters 2 and 3, and in
more detail in association with the case studies presented in Chapter 4. We certainly
make no claims to present, in this brief text, a comprehensive treatment of the vast
terrain occupied by the intersection between science and ethic/values issues. Our
purpose in this and succeeding chapters is to demonstrate the important and essential
need to teach science in a manner that illuminates its ethical content. One reason for
doing this is the practical result discovered by the teachers who attended our Summer
Institutes: it heightens the interest of their students because of the "humanizing" effect
of incorporating ethics into science teaching. But, we believe that a more important
reason is our obligation as teachers to convey to our students the true nature of the
human enterprise that we call science. As Rescher states in the final section of his
essay, "It is a regrettable fact that too many persons, both scientists and students of the
scientific method, have had their attention focused so sharply upon the abstracted 'logic'
of an idealized 'scientific method' that this ethical dimension of science has completely
escaped their notice. This circumstance seems to me particularly regrettable because it
has fostered a harmful myth that finds strong support in both the scientific and the
humanistic camps -- namely the view that science is antiseptically devoid of any
involvement with human values."(15)
Technologies under Development
Progressive innovations incorporate little underground atomic power units called nuclear
batteries that will be super safe and free from maintenance.

Education
In societies with restricted loads of learning, brilliant and imaginative individuals feel smothered
and emigrate when they can; making an endless loop that traps the individuals who stay in a
more ruined space.

The advantages that are sure to spill out of innovative upset in an undeniably associated world
will be seized by those nations that are alive to the evolving world. Those that succeed will make
significant advances in lessening inequality and poverty.

One of the easiest ways to see how science has impacted people nowadays is in the medical field.
People extend their lives because of scientists' understanding of how our bodies function and
interact with our environment. Today, it is possible to find treatments for a variety of diseases or
illness that are common in underdeveloped countries, allowing those who suffer from
debilitating conditions to have happy, fulfilling lives. Our education is yet another example.
Brilliant and creative people feel restricted in communities with low educational standards and
leave when they can, creating an ongoing cycle that traps those who stay in an area that is
increasingly degraded. Those nations who are aware of how the world is changing will benefit
from the advantages that will undoubtedly result from innovative change in a world that is
definitely connected. Those who are successful will make important progress toward reducing
poverty and inequality. The way people live, associate, communicate, and act is being
fundamentally altered by advances in science and innovation, with profound effects on society.

It is the technology that is shaping our society. It can make our life better and it can become
a threat to our life too. The results that appear are as per the way we are using it. Our use
makes technology favorable or awful.