TD626 - End Sem Assignment

Name: Dhruv Gajjar

Roll No: 190100045

PART A: SUMMARIES
Chapters from Book:
Chapter 9: “Two Questions Concerning Technology”
In this chapter, Sismondo poses two questions.
- Is Technology Applied Science?
- Does Technology Drive History?

Discussing the first one the author points out that according to historical and theoretical
perspectives, the relationship between science and technology is complex and not as
straightforward as the linear model, which suggests that basic research leads to applied
research, development, and production. Technological artifacts show that scientific
knowledge plays little direct role in the development of many state-of-the-art technologies.
Historians and other theorists of technology have argued that there are technological
knowledge traditions that are independent of science, and that to understand the artifacts
one needs to understand them. Engineering, as a discipline, develops its own mathematics,
experimental results, and techniques. Science, then, does not have a monopoly on technical
knowledge. The indistinctness of science and technology can fall out of accounts of science
as well. Therefore, the relationship between science and technology is complex and
multifaceted.

On the second question the author talks of technological determinism, which is the idea that
technology and its properties determine social events. This perspective emphasizes that
available material resources form the environment in which rational economic choices are
made. It also highlights the "real-world constraints" and "technical logics" that shape
technological trajectories. While some technologies appear compatible with particular
political and social arrangements, others may bring their own demands for policing and other
forms of state power. Some individual artifacts may be constructed to achieve political goals.
For example, the history of industrial automation reveals many choices made to empower
and disempower different key groups. If technologies have no essential features, then they
should not have systemic effects, and if they do not have any systematic effects, then they
cannot determine structures of the social world.

Chapter 11: Controversies

The chapter begins by discussing the role of controversies in scientific and technological
fields. The author argues that controversies can be beneficial because they can lead to new
discoveries, improvements in technology, and a better understanding of the limits of scientific
knowledge. However, controversies can also be harmful because they can lead to confusion,
misinformation, and public mistrust of science and technology. The chapter then examines
the ways in which controversies arise in scientific and technological fields. Controversies
often arise when there are conflicting interests and values at play. The chapter first
discusses reasonable disagreements. It asserts that almost all participants have reasons for
their positions and a symmetrical approach attempts to show the force of those reasons,
even if they eventually fail. Then the author talks about Experimenters’ Regress. The notion
of experimenters' regress challenges the foundational distinctiveness of experimentation,
and shows how there can be intractable controversies over experiments. Experimental
systems should be tools for producing differential responses, devices that reflect the different
natures of different inputs.
Further author writes on Interests and Rhetorics where he talks of conflicting interests and
values often lead to controversies, but disagreements can be managed, allowing knowledge
and agreement to be built up. The author also examines the tools that actors use to further
their positions, such as rhetorical tools, appeals to science and disciplines, and appeals to
reputation. Finally the author discusses resolving the controversies.

Document 1:
The making of an indigenous scanning tunnelling microscope - Pankaj Sekhsaria

The paper discusses the development of scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) which
represents a significant advance in nanotechnology. It permits atomic-level research on the
surface structure of materials. The invention of a native scanning tunnelling microscope in
India is a noteworthy accomplishment that emphasises the value of student participation in
research endeavours.

Students were instrumental in the project's design, building, and testing of the scanning
probe microscopes (SPMs), which was carried out at the University of Pune. These
microscopes were constructed by the researchers over the course of two decades using
inventively discarded materials and junk markets.

The essay goes into great depth about how to construct an STM from scratch, including
where to find building materials and elements like cantilevers and tips. It also explains how
students took part in every stage of this process, from developing and building these
equipment to testing and modifying them.

One interesting aspect highlighted in this article is how junk markets and scrap materials
were utilized to push these instruments to their limits. For example, researchers used pencil
leads to make probes for STM, while AFM tips were made from hand-crushed pawn-shop
diamonds glued to tinfoil cantilevers with brushes made from their own eyebrow hairs.

Overall, this PDF file provides valuable insights into the process of creating an indigenous
STM in India. It highlights not only the technical aspects involved but also emphasizes the
importance of student involvement in research projects like this one. Additionally, it
showcases how creativity and resourcefulness can be used to overcome challenges when
working with limited resources. It also provides a unique perspective on the process of
creating an STM from scratch and highlights the important role that students played in this
project. Additionally, it showcases how researchers at Pune were able to overcome
challenges and produce high-quality SPMs using limited resources.

Document 2: Technology Vision 2035 Visions: Technologies, Democracy and the

Citizen in India - Pankaj Sekhsaria, Naveen Thayyil
The Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council created a paper called
Technology Vision 2035 that outlines the major issues and requirements for India's
technology future. The research is based on the objectives of India's population as a whole,
the goals of its young people, and the expected expectations of Indians in 2035 as the nation
expands.

The document's fundamental narrative, which conflates the people and the nation-state, is
nationalist and developmental. The report alternates between referencing each one as
though it were the other. There is too much emphasis on achieving economic growth at any
cost, which may be at the expense of environmental sustainability or social fairness. This is
most evident in the one-page section titled “Our Aspiration” where it is the “we” that talk most
prominently and where the voice is supposed to be that of the collective.

One key problem identified is that the technological vision of 2035 does not adequately
address rural issues. The report focuses heavily on urban areas and high-tech industries,
but does not pay enough attention to rural areas, where many Indians still live. The authors
argue that this lack of attention to rural areas can exacerbate the disparity between urban
and rural populations. Another problem is the overemphasis on economic growth at all costs.
While economic growth is important for India's development, it should not come at the
expense of social justice or environmental sustainability.

Overall, Technology Vision 2035 is an important document for understanding India's

technological future. However, they suggest that the report could be improved by placing
greater emphasis on rural areas, social justice, and environmental. There is a need for
greater public participation in the development of technology policy in order to ensure that it
reflects the needs and aspirations of all Indians.

PART B: Correlation among all the four readings.

Human Involvement: All the four readings in some form emphasise the fact that the notion of
technology being the supreme is a bit flawed and doesn’t take into account the perspective
of all the stakeholders. The first reading talks about how technology, science and innovation
is perceived differently by engineers, scientists, common man, etc and how therefore
science isn’t always required to innovate technology. Similarly the second reading
“controversies” raises a lot of fundamental questions as to how science and technology is
practised which differs with involvement of humans as there is difference in powers which
could be political or social powers possessed by different individuals influencing the science
and technological development across the globe. The third reading suggests how engineers
in a small town with limited resources could work out a similar technology which was once
built, spending a lot of resources and cost. Finally the fourth reading suggests that the
people in positions of power certainly develop a vision of everyone irrespective of the fact
whether everyone agrees with the vision or not, also whether the vision genuinely
encompasses the needs and aspirations of everyone within that particular demographic.

Fundamental Questioning: All the readings suggest how important it is to question the
fundamentals of publications, research and innovations in order to justify their true utility,
importance and inclusivity. For example the way Sismondo presents two fundamental
questions is: “Is Technology Applied Science?”, “Does Technology Drive History?. These two
questions unfold how there is a lot more to what we think as very obvious. The third reading
where engineering with limited resources could do, which required once a lot of cost and
resources, shows the need of questioning our methods of research and how we could do
better in terms of utility resources and building technology for all and not just technology for
first world institutions. Similarly the more we question we get to know that the vision given by
the government is not actually for every individual and just considers the aspirations of a
very limited section of the society with a lot of western influence with respect to the
development model.

Controversies: All the four readings have a lot of debating as to what is right and what is
wrong. Starting with two questions in the first reading, with how engineers with limited
resources build better technology and is the vision laid by the government genuinely
representative. As an engineer I could say that there is no perfect technology as a complex
system like earth and universe is highly interrelated, for example we thought HYV seeds
were great until years later we discovered harmful effects, same with plastic, today we say
solar is great but if we cover all our deserts with solar panels we might experience certain
unnatural phenomenon which used to happened due to open winds, sands and microbes
below. Therefore, all the controversies are genuine but it is important to notice that there
can’t be a yes or no answer. It's the beauty of STS which allows us to accept differences in
perspective and opinions and therefore right for one might not necessarily be right for other.
Therefore it is important to keep the controversies alive to reach a middle ground for
betterment of everyone.

Rhetorics - As the reading controversies discuss rhetoric and the people in power to
influence decisions, conclusions, etc. Similar is happening in case of the Technology VIsion
2035 document which is a reflection of the vision and thought of a handful of people in a
decision making position. Similarly in the case of Indian scientists making a cutting edge
technology with limited resources struggle for appreciation across the world unlike the case
in the west.

Overall, the readings factually might not be correlated or not be addressing the same topic
but there is a certain fundamental relationship between them as highlighted above.