Introduction: From Sustainability to Surveillance
At Stanford University, a long-standing tradition is for undergraduate students to identify themselves as “techies” or “fuzzies.” Techie students study math, engineering, physics, biology, and related fields in the natural sciences, and most of their coursework revolves around solving problem sets. Fuzzy students study art, history, communications, and other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, and most of their coursework involves writing term papers. When asked to explain the difference between the two, one student offered a very simple, quotidian explanation: Techies study questions that have right or wrong answers, while fuzzies study questions where acceptable answers can be multiple and ambiguous. While the techie/fuzzy distinction is largely intended to be humorous, there is nonetheless something to it; it reflects multiple historical cleavages: fact versus opinion, natural versus social world, and science versus non-science. The existence of scientific and technological controversies illustrates the woeful inadequacy of these dualistic categories for two reasons. First, the acquisition of scientific knowledge is not a simple matter of factfinding, whereby scientists go out and discover The Truth, straight-forwardly reading off of nature. Scientific knowledge reflects the historical, political, economic, cultural, and institutional environments in which it is embedded (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Pinch and Bijker 1984). Favored methods of investigation, what levels of uncertainty are acceptable, and error type preferences (false positive versus false negative), among other factors that shape how science is done, reflect human history and values. In this context, science and technology are neither above nor immune from controversy. Second, social problems that are intrinsically related to certain technologies (for instance, the environmental consequences of fossil-based energy production) are arguably becoming increasingly acute. In the face of these kinds of challenges, it is no longer sufficient for scientific and technological controversies to be left solely in the hands of scientists and other experts. Scientific claims are becoming increasingly politicized by citizen groups, public officials, and others, many of whom are actively challenging traditional notions of what constitutes valid and acceptable knowledge. The “black box” of scientific expertise has been cracked open, and it is only likely to open wider.