Science,Technology,& Human Values

Humans do two types of actions, polimorphic actions and mimeomorphic actions. The ability to carry out polimorphic actions cannot be mastered outside of socialization. Mimeomorphic actions, however, can be learned in other ways; sometimes, they can be learned away from the context of practice. Polimorphic actions cannot be mimicked by machines, but some mimeomorphic actions can. Other mimeomorphic actions are too complex to mechanize. Actions that cannot be mechanized because they are physically complicated should not be confused with actions that cannot be mechanized because socialization is needed to master them. The analysis has implications for recent debates concerning the differences and similarities between humans and machines. The implica tion of the analysis is that much more can be understood about the relationship between humans and machines if the difference is treated as being a consequence of the unique properties of human societies. In this article, the analysis is applied to cardiac catheteriza tion, pacemaker implantation, simulation of bodies, and work in a medical "SkillsLab."

While the issue of standards has received attention from analysts in science and technology studies, this attention has tended to focus on either units of measurement or compatibility standards. Much less attention has been devoted to equally important standards of practice. These are the procedural or process standards which govern how technologists go about designing and constructing artifacts. Such standards have a substantial documented history in the form of engineering codes of practice. As the embodiment of judgments rendered by a particular community of technological practi tioners, these standards both reflect and shape the exercise of practitioner judgment. This article explores both these functions through examples drawn from structural and software engineering. These examples yield insights regarding both the role of formal procedural standards in technological practice and the unusual nature of software technology.

This article discusses a range of recent major surveys of public attitudes toward biotechnology. The authors identify a number of problematic features of the surveys: the use of predominantly consumerist rather than civic conception of public discourse; the assumption of a unitary "general public," a "cognitive deficit" approach to public understanding of science; and the presumption of a politically neutral and instrumental ist model of science and technology. The authors then examine some alternative ap proaches to exploring perceptions of biotechnology among a diversity of interested publics, including more focused dialogical surveys, consensus conferences, and parlia mentary inquiries.

The acid rain issue came into prominence because scientists kept telling the world of acid rain's potential devastating effects. Yet, the acid rain debate was marked by mistrust between American and Canadian scientists. The signing of the Air Quality Accord in 1991 appears to have quelled this divisiveness and promises to bring about a new era of scientific cooperation. Using surveys of acid rain scientists in the United States and Canada across three time periods, this study finds both similarities and differences between how Canadian and American scientists view many of the issues surrounding the acid rain debate.