Introduction to Science, Technology and Society	Professor Peter Ross
STS 201							Office:  Bldg. 1, Rm. 325
Fall 2016							Phone: (909) 869-3036
CRN 70915, 4 units						e-mail: pwross@cpp.edu
Class meetings:  M, W, F 10:30-11:35			Office hours:  M 1-2, W 1-2 
Location:  Bldg. 163, Room 1020					and by appointment
				
Science, Technology, and Society (STS) is an interdisciplinary area of research and teaching which focuses on the interrelation between science and technology (on the one hand) and society (on the other).  STS takes this complicated interrelation as its object of study.  Consequently, topics in STS include:  (1) scientific epistemology; (2) interrelationship between science and technology (on the one hand) and public policy (on the other), and (3) public understanding of science (including public trust of scientific expertise).  We’ll work our way through these topics.

Readings
	Readings for the course will be available in class (paper), and on Blackboard.
Recommended Text:
	M. Bridgstock, D. Burch, J. Forge, J. Laurent, and I. Lowe, Science, Technology, and Society:  An Introduction (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1998)

Course Goals:
Upon completion of the course, students will be able to:
1.	Delineate intellectual foundations of science, including describe how science is different from pseudoscience, and how innovative scientific research is different from textbook science.
2.	Discern ways in which societal practices and attitudes influence the development of science and technology, for example, how local, national, and global political interests affect scientific inquiry and technological development.
3.	Discern ways in which science and technology impact society, for example, how they impact conceptions of our relation to the environment.

Requirements and Grading:
4-5 short response papers:				40%
"Tell me what you know" quizzes			15%
	Term paper:					25% due Wed. 12/7, abstract due Wed. 11/16
		OR
	Final exam					25% in class Wed. 12/7, 9:10-11:10
Attendance and participation: 			20%

Short response papers:  during the quarter you will be assigned 4-5 reading response papers.  These papers are 1-2 pages long, and will be focused to answer specific questions about particular readings; these papers will be due a class or two following their assignment.  They will be graded on the basis of clarity of reasoning and demonstrated effort.  The primary goal of these papers is to engage you with some of the basic problems presented in the course.

Term paper:  this paper is 2000 words (about 7-8 pages double spaced with 1" margins) with a 150 word abstract.  A draft of the abstract, which must include a thesis statement, is due about three weeks prior to the due date of the paper; you should talk to me about your thesis prior to turning in your abstract.  The goal of the term paper is for you to work out a sustained argument for a thesis.
Final exam:  the final will be a comprehensive, essay-question exam.
Policy on late short response papers:  late papers will be marked down according to the following guideline:  for every class the paper is late, it is automatically marked down one whole grade (that is, if a paper due on Monday is turned in on the following Wednesday, it will be marked down one grade, for example, from an A to and B).  Exceptions to this policy will be made only in the case of documented illnesses.

"Tell me what you know" quizzes:  these will be explained in class.

Tentative schedule for reading assignments: 

Week 1/Sept. 26 Introduction:  What Is STS?
M. Bridgstock, D. Burch, J. Forge, J. Laurent, and I. Lowe, Introduction from Science, Technology, 
	and Society:  An Introduction

Weeks 1-4/Sept. 28-Oct. 21:  Topic 1, Science in a Social Context
(a) Does a method define what is scientific?
J. Bronowski, excerpts from Science and Human Values 
Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Science, excerpt from “On Being a
	Scientist,” First Edition 
D. Goodstein, excerpt from “How Science Works,” from Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence

(b) Controversies in science and technology
H. Collins and T. Pinch, “The World According to Gold:  Disputes about the Origins of Oil” from
	The Golem at Large 
M. Bridgstock, “Controversies Regarding Science and Technology” (Ch. 5) from Science, 	Technology, and Society:  An Introduction
S. O. Hansson, “Science and Pseudo-Science,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(c) Racism and science in early 20th century U. S.
T. Leonard, excerpt from Illiberal Reformers
K. Ludmerer, excerpts from Genetics and American Society 
F. Scott Fitzgerald, excerpt from The Great Gatsby  
C. R. Pierpont, excerpts from “The Measure of America,” The New Yorker, 3/08/04 
K. Severson, “Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution,” The New York Times, 12/09/11

Weeks 5-8/Oct. 24-Nov.18:  Topic 2, Science, Politics, and Money
(a) Who funds science and technology?
M. Bridgstock, “The Scientific Community,” (Ch. 2) from Science, Technology, and Society:  An 	Introduction

(b) Science, technology, and public policy
I. Lowe, “Science, Technology and Public Policy,” (Ch. 9) from Science, Technology, and Society:  	An Introduction
G. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons” 
N. Oreskes, “Science and Public Policy:  What’s Proof Got to Do with It?” 

(c) Science, technology, and economic growth
J. Forge, “The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain,” (Ch. 6) from Science, Technology, and Society:  	An Introduction
A. Leonard, “Consumption” (Ch. 4) from The Story of Stuff:  How Our Obsession with Stuff Is
Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, and Our Health--and a Vision for Change 
J. T. Lyle, “Sustainability in the Neotechnic Era,” (Ch. 1) from Regenerative Design for
Sustainable Development 
J. Schor, excerpts from Plenitude:  The New Economics of True Wealth 
C. Davidson, “Economic Growth and the Environment:  Alternatives to the Limits Paradigm,” 

Weeks 9-10/Nov.21-Dec. 2:  Topic 3, Scientific Literacy and the Politics of Climate Change
(a) Scientific background for climate change
American Meteorological Society’s Statement on Climate Change, August 2012 
M. Hulme, “The Performance of Science,” (Ch. 3) from Why We Disagree about Climate Change: 
	Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity
J. Trefil, “Theory, Experiment, and the Third Way,” from Why Science? 

(b) Scientific literacy and the political and ethical aspects of climate change
J. Trefil, “The Goals of Science Education,” (Ch. 10) from Why Science? 
W. Kempton, J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley, “Case Studies of Influential Specialists,” (Ch. 7) from
	Environmental Values in American Culture 
M. Hulme, “The Communication of Risk,” (Ch. 7) from Why We Disagree about Climate Change: 
	Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity 
D. Jamieson, excerpt from “Post Kyoto-Climate” 

Resources:  Additional resources for early 20th century eugenics and racism in the US include three books of historical research, Mark Haller’s Eugenics:  Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (Rutgers U. Press, 1963), Donald K. Pickens’s Eugenics and the Progressives (Vanderbilt U. Press, 1968), and Daniel Kevles’s In the Name of Eugenics (Knopf, 1985).  Elof Axel Carlson’s The Unfit:  A History of a Bad Idea (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001) places early 20th century American eugenics in broad historical context.  An extremely helpful textbook style presentation of American eugenics, which also places it in broad historical context, is Race, Racism, and Science:  Social Impact and Interaction by John P. Jackson, Jr. and Nadine M. Weidman (Rutgers U. Press, 2006); this book includes a glossary and selections from original documents.
	A classic statement of the limits of economic growth is:  The Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William Behrens (Universe Books, 1972).  This statement was immediately criticized, for example, by Wilfred Beckerman; see “Economists, Scientists, and Environmental Catastrophe,” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 3 (November 1972):  327-344.  For more criticism of Meadows et al., see William Nordhaus, Robert Stavins, Martin Weitzman, “Lethal Model 2:  The Limits to Growth Revisited,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1992, No. 2 (1992): 1-59.  Also see Jeffrey Frankel and Andrew Rose, “Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment?  Sorting Out the Causality,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 87, No. 1 (October 2005):  85-91; this paper discusses what is called the Environmental Kuznets Curve.