Post 17

In this post I will argue that scientists do not have as much freedom and control to develop and innovate as American society has come to believe and offer potential solutions. Although it is evident that technology and science influence almost every cornerstone of our lives, scientists are not solely responsible. The companies and corporations that hire scientists have a purpose to make money; often at regardless of the toll it may take on their employees and environment. Similarly, the idea of green chemistry is not given importance over maximizing profit. Many times the general public will incorrectly blame scientists for lack of effort to implement green chemistry.

In our society, it is easy to see why companies hire scientists who think like they do. It is important for a company to make money and many times it costs a scientist to abandon his or her personal interests or goals in order to impress his or her employers. Or in many cases, even keep their job if it means using brown chemistry because it is cheaper for the company. As Woodhouse writes, “… it would be a serious mistake to suppose that the scientists are merely the handmaidens in this relationship” (172). However, Woodhouse argues that if scientists knew about green chemistry in the 20^th century, why did no one pursue this goal? I believe that this goes back to the idea of profit over conservation of the environment. Also, the pressure from the media, conservationists and government laws was not there to push for smarter decisions, allowing them to continue science how they wanted.

The concept of unintended consequences is related to the decisions that scientists or companies make as well. Besides the impact on the environment, many countries from which raw materials arrive are affected because when there is material waste, it is usually sent back to these places. In many ways, allowing corporate CEOs to determine what their scientists and engineers develop and innovate creates unintended consequences because a majority of CEOs do not have a background in science or technology, but rather business (sound familiar?). A potential solution would be create committees that are consist of scientists and engineers that act as a sort of “checks and balances” to the decisions the CEO or head scientist or engineer makes. Perhaps this would reduce unintended consequences and shift the focus of R&D to helping poorer nations and their problems instead of developing the best leather for seats in our cars.

Sources

Science, Technology and Society Textbook