Wednesday, January 26, 2005
UKWON | Journals These papers (and the larger website they come from) have a lot of interesting material on work organisatinon and topics such as innovation in the NHS, new economy etc.
Here's an exceprt from Peter Brodner's piece on the productivity paradox:
"iThe fundamental differences between semiotic and
other machines are rooted in their purpose, the way
they work, and the domain of their actions. The
domain of actions of classical machines is nature, as
they all use natural (ie mechanical, electrical, chemical
or biological) actions to transform material or energy,
while the domain of actions of semiotic machines is
social interaction, as they transform data (or signals)
in sign processes of human interaction. Consequently,
semiotic machines operate solely in the social domain
of sign processes and they do not leave the realm of
social relationships. While the functionality of classical
machines is based on the knowledge and purposeful
use of natural effects or forces, the functionality of
semiotic machines, in contrast, is based on explicit
prescriptions for acting by strictly formalising sign
processes in order to organise and coordinate
collective acting."
Discuss!
Here's an exceprt from Peter Brodner's piece on the productivity paradox:
"iThe fundamental differences between semiotic and
other machines are rooted in their purpose, the way
they work, and the domain of their actions. The
domain of actions of classical machines is nature, as
they all use natural (ie mechanical, electrical, chemical
or biological) actions to transform material or energy,
while the domain of actions of semiotic machines is
social interaction, as they transform data (or signals)
in sign processes of human interaction. Consequently,
semiotic machines operate solely in the social domain
of sign processes and they do not leave the realm of
social relationships. While the functionality of classical
machines is based on the knowledge and purposeful
use of natural effects or forces, the functionality of
semiotic machines, in contrast, is based on explicit
prescriptions for acting by strictly formalising sign
processes in order to organise and coordinate
collective acting."
Discuss!
Friday, January 21, 2005
Ines Global Homepage
The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) is an independent non-profit-organization concerned about the impact of science and technology on society. INES was founded in 1991.
INES`efforts focus on disarmament and international peace, ethics, justice and sustainable development. INES is affiliated with the United Nations an with UNESCO as a NON-Governmental Organization (NGO).
In 13 years, INES has become a network of over 90 member organizations and individual members in 40 countries.
Newsletters, news on members publications, etc.
The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) is an independent non-profit-organization concerned about the impact of science and technology on society. INES was founded in 1991.
INES`efforts focus on disarmament and international peace, ethics, justice and sustainable development. INES is affiliated with the United Nations an with UNESCO as a NON-Governmental Organization (NGO).
In 13 years, INES has become a network of over 90 member organizations and individual members in 40 countries.
Newsletters, news on members publications, etc.
Scientists for Global Responsibility - Index Page New report on military involvement in S&T.
Excerpt:
"Principal conclusions
There are seven main conclusions which have arisen as a
result of the research undertaken for this Report concerning
the military influences on SET. These can be summarised as:
1. The military sector, especially in the UK and USA, has
a very large and disproportionate effect on science,
engineering and technology. The UK-US ‘special
relationship’ (largely based on a 1958 treaty, which
was renewed in 2004) further drives military R&D
which has profound social and ethical implications.
2. Current military thinking is based predominantly upon
the idea of security through the superiority of military
force, and marginalises broader concepts of security
based on social justice and environmental sustainability.
This affects which areas in SET are funded by the
military.
3. The UK government policies which have shaped SET
over recent decades have moved commercial priorities
centre stage, and military corporations have played
a large part in this process.
4. Military and commercial pressures compromise openness
and accountability in SET, for example, through the
use and overuse of commercial confidentially and national
security arguments. This can stifle debate and dissent
over ethical issues in SET. In general, public scrutiny
of SET in the UK, including its funding and direction,
is weak.
5. Military support of emerging technologies such as the
nanotechnologies is high (especially in the USA). This
imposes barriers to full public scrutiny of these technologies
and colours the public perception of the potential
usefulness of such technologies.
6. Technology transfer from military-supported R&D
to civilian use is a complex and expensive route which
has, to a large extent, been disappointing in view of the
massive investments involved.
7. Areas such as peace-building and sustainable development
are currently underfunded, and would benefit substantially
from an expansion of SET expertise paid for
by a reallocation of proportions of military budgets.
Furthermore, we make eight additional conclusions:
8. Global security today faces more challenges from
terrorist groups than from nation states.However, the use
of essentially Cold War-type strategies and technologies
(and the R&D that supports them) in the industrialised
countries does not significantly address these needs.
9. Globally, military spending on equipment procurement
and R&D not only can divert resources from, for example,
health or poverty alleviation programmes, but can also
contribute to arms proliferation and refugee crises globally.
10. A broader interpretation of security is called for which
takes account of global issues such as climate change,
resource depletion, loss of biodiversity and an array
of human health problems. Some redirection of the
global ‘defence’ burden to underfunded areas (many with
a SET component) such as renewable energy and climate
change mitigation would significantly assist in the
development of these areas.
11. The development of a new generation of nuclear
weapons, by US and probably UK weapons laboratories,
is likely to compromise security through the undermining
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear weapons
create a climate of fear and send a strong message to other
countries who do not yet have them that possession of
nuclear weapons is a desirable and acceptable security
objective. Furthermore, new, so-called ‘bunker-buster’,
low-yield nuclear weapons are likely to blur the distinction
between conventional and nuclear war.
12. Areas such as space science and the biosciences have
become ‘militarised’ in the USA. This has influenced,
and potentially downgraded, the priority given to other
areas such as research to produce low cost therapeutic
agents, energy efficiency and strategies for urgent climate
change amelioration. These effects originating within the
USA ramify across the world essentially because of the
country’s pivotal role in SET.
13. A number of consortia have been launched over the past
three years in the UK which involve the military corporations,
government departments and the universities.
These forms of collaboration have a largely military
agenda for research. Such an agenda has not been sufficiently
scrutinised for its social and ethical implications."
"
"The world today faces a range of social and environmental
problems, many of which have an impact on security.
Poverty, lack of access to basic resources such as clean water
and sanitation, and global climate change represent urgent
problems. Furthermore, unsustainable levels of resource
consumption by the industrialised world can contribute to a
range of international problems, at times including conflict.
Our investigations show that SET programmes in conflict
prevention, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection
often yield clear benefits for relatively little cost, yet these
areas get a fraction of the budget allocated to military technology.
Disarmament and peacebuilding initiatives also tend
to be smaller scale. Equally, R&D budgets for renewable
energy technologies, essential to tackle the threat of climate
change, are dwarfed by budgets for the development of
weapons technology."
Excerpt:
"Principal conclusions
There are seven main conclusions which have arisen as a
result of the research undertaken for this Report concerning
the military influences on SET. These can be summarised as:
1. The military sector, especially in the UK and USA, has
a very large and disproportionate effect on science,
engineering and technology. The UK-US ‘special
relationship’ (largely based on a 1958 treaty, which
was renewed in 2004) further drives military R&D
which has profound social and ethical implications.
2. Current military thinking is based predominantly upon
the idea of security through the superiority of military
force, and marginalises broader concepts of security
based on social justice and environmental sustainability.
This affects which areas in SET are funded by the
military.
3. The UK government policies which have shaped SET
over recent decades have moved commercial priorities
centre stage, and military corporations have played
a large part in this process.
4. Military and commercial pressures compromise openness
and accountability in SET, for example, through the
use and overuse of commercial confidentially and national
security arguments. This can stifle debate and dissent
over ethical issues in SET. In general, public scrutiny
of SET in the UK, including its funding and direction,
is weak.
5. Military support of emerging technologies such as the
nanotechnologies is high (especially in the USA). This
imposes barriers to full public scrutiny of these technologies
and colours the public perception of the potential
usefulness of such technologies.
6. Technology transfer from military-supported R&D
to civilian use is a complex and expensive route which
has, to a large extent, been disappointing in view of the
massive investments involved.
7. Areas such as peace-building and sustainable development
are currently underfunded, and would benefit substantially
from an expansion of SET expertise paid for
by a reallocation of proportions of military budgets.
Furthermore, we make eight additional conclusions:
8. Global security today faces more challenges from
terrorist groups than from nation states.However, the use
of essentially Cold War-type strategies and technologies
(and the R&D that supports them) in the industrialised
countries does not significantly address these needs.
9. Globally, military spending on equipment procurement
and R&D not only can divert resources from, for example,
health or poverty alleviation programmes, but can also
contribute to arms proliferation and refugee crises globally.
10. A broader interpretation of security is called for which
takes account of global issues such as climate change,
resource depletion, loss of biodiversity and an array
of human health problems. Some redirection of the
global ‘defence’ burden to underfunded areas (many with
a SET component) such as renewable energy and climate
change mitigation would significantly assist in the
development of these areas.
11. The development of a new generation of nuclear
weapons, by US and probably UK weapons laboratories,
is likely to compromise security through the undermining
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear weapons
create a climate of fear and send a strong message to other
countries who do not yet have them that possession of
nuclear weapons is a desirable and acceptable security
objective. Furthermore, new, so-called ‘bunker-buster’,
low-yield nuclear weapons are likely to blur the distinction
between conventional and nuclear war.
12. Areas such as space science and the biosciences have
become ‘militarised’ in the USA. This has influenced,
and potentially downgraded, the priority given to other
areas such as research to produce low cost therapeutic
agents, energy efficiency and strategies for urgent climate
change amelioration. These effects originating within the
USA ramify across the world essentially because of the
country’s pivotal role in SET.
13. A number of consortia have been launched over the past
three years in the UK which involve the military corporations,
government departments and the universities.
These forms of collaboration have a largely military
agenda for research. Such an agenda has not been sufficiently
scrutinised for its social and ethical implications."
"
"The world today faces a range of social and environmental
problems, many of which have an impact on security.
Poverty, lack of access to basic resources such as clean water
and sanitation, and global climate change represent urgent
problems. Furthermore, unsustainable levels of resource
consumption by the industrialised world can contribute to a
range of international problems, at times including conflict.
Our investigations show that SET programmes in conflict
prevention, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection
often yield clear benefits for relatively little cost, yet these
areas get a fraction of the budget allocated to military technology.
Disarmament and peacebuilding initiatives also tend
to be smaller scale. Equally, R&D budgets for renewable
energy technologies, essential to tackle the threat of climate
change, are dwarfed by budgets for the development of
weapons technology."
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Janus Joint Analytical Network For Using Socio-economic research yet another network doing valuable work on Knowledge Society and alternative development paths in Europe.
CORDIS: Science and Technology Indicators: Publications
Here you can get to the following publication MAPPING EXCELLENECE IN ECONOMICS which uses bibliometric methods to see what they say about impact, reputation etc of various Euro institutions in various fields. Industrial economics is one; tech change and innovation also feature. Good to see manchester rates quite well - the UK dominates the EU in all fields studied. Lots of methodological food for thought.
Here you can get to the following publication MAPPING EXCELLENECE IN ECONOMICS which uses bibliometric methods to see what they say about impact, reputation etc of various Euro institutions in various fields. Industrial economics is one; tech change and innovation also feature. Good to see manchester rates quite well - the UK dominates the EU in all fields studied. Lots of methodological food for thought.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
MUTEIS: And another projecyt with much accomplished: "The overall objective of the MUTEIS project is to explain and understand functional and spatial diversity in Europe's digital economy both from a macro and local/urban perspective. We want to improve knowledge of the macro economic impact of the digital economy, but also on the origins and causes of local diversities in the development of the digital economy as we believe that the urban stories help to understand the macro-overall pattern. The analysis should improve the design and implementation of policy action on European, national and urban levels that efficiently and effectively help Europe's transition into the digital economy in a sustainable way"
Risesi homepage project on regional dimensions of Information Society, with focus on emoployment and social integration. Lots of downloads.
Monday, January 17, 2005
ROBTv.com - Canada's all business news television station. Nanotechnology videos I havent checked these out, and don't anticipate having the right mix of time and headspace to do so, but this is a set of 10 minute video presentations:
Monday Tiny Tech
Kim Parlee, anchor, Report on Business Television
Tiny Tech
Josh Wolfe, founder, Lux Capital & author, Forbes/Lux Nanotech Report
Tiny Tech
Charles Harris, chairman & CEO, Harris & Harris Group
Tuesday Tiny Tech
Wilbur Ross, chairman & CEO, WL Ross & Company
Wednesday Tiny Tech
Kristen Kulinowski, executive director for education and public policy, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology, Rice University
Thursday Tiny Tech
Scott Mize, president, Foresight Institute
Tiny Tech
Dr. Meyya Meyyappan, director, Center for Nanotechnology, NASA Ames Research Center
Friday Tiny Tech
Neil Gordon, president, Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance
Tiny Tech highlight reel
Monday Tiny Tech
Kim Parlee, anchor, Report on Business Television
Tiny Tech
Josh Wolfe, founder, Lux Capital & author, Forbes/Lux Nanotech Report
Tiny Tech
Charles Harris, chairman & CEO, Harris & Harris Group
Tuesday Tiny Tech
Wilbur Ross, chairman & CEO, WL Ross & Company
Wednesday Tiny Tech
Kristen Kulinowski, executive director for education and public policy, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology, Rice University
Thursday Tiny Tech
Scott Mize, president, Foresight Institute
Tiny Tech
Dr. Meyya Meyyappan, director, Center for Nanotechnology, NASA Ames Research Center
Friday Tiny Tech
Neil Gordon, president, Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance
Tiny Tech highlight reel
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Economist articles on nanotechnology Very smalll things explained succinctly with very much technooptimism.
Monday, January 10, 2005
"The International Challenge of Climate Change: Thinking Beyond Kyoto" by Steve Rayner:
"The current overwhelming focus on Kyoto offers only one potential climate policy path and, at present, there is no viable alternative or fallback. But Kyoto need not be, and should not be the only game in town..."
Heterodox and well-informed critique of scientism and climate change policy, case for more public energy R&D... by Steve Rayner
"The current overwhelming focus on Kyoto offers only one potential climate policy path and, at present, there is no viable alternative or fallback. But Kyoto need not be, and should not be the only game in town..."
Heterodox and well-informed critique of scientism and climate change policy, case for more public energy R&D... by Steve Rayner
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Couple of interesting-looking books on risk, precaution, social construction of technoanxieties:
Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution
Deals with the health panic surrounding cellular phones that developed in the mid-1990s. Treating the issue as
more 'social construction' than evident scientific problem, it tells the story of how this originally American anxiety diffused internationally, having an even bigger impact in countries such as Italy. Burgess highlights the contrasting reactions to the issue ranging from positive indifference in Finland to those such as the UK where precautionary measures were taken. These differences are located within the emergence of a precautionary culture driven by institutional insecurity that first appeared in the US and is now most evident in Europe. Anxieties about cell phone radiowaves are also situated historically in the very different reactions to technologies such as x-rays and in the more similar
'microwave suspicions' about television. In addition, Burgess outlines a history and sociology of what is, despite media-driven anxieties, a spectacularly successful device "
Hmm. And:
Mark L. Winston Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone
"With genetically modified crops we have entered uncharted territory--where visions of the triumph of biotechnology in agriculture vie with dire views of medical and environmental disaster. For two years Mark L. Winston traveled this fraught territory at home and abroad, listening to farmers, industry spokespeople, regulators, and researchers, canvassing high-security laboratories, environmentalist enclaves, and cyberspace, making a thorough survey of the facts, opinions, and practices deployed by opponents and proponents of transgenic crops.
Through his sympathetic portrayal of the passions on all sides, Winston brings a clear, unbiased perspective to this bewildering landscape. Traveling with Winston, we see the excitement and curiosity that pervade laboratories developing genetically modified crops, as well as the panic and outrage among dedicated opponents of agricultural biotechnology; the desperation of conventional farmers as they look to science for solutions to the problems driving them from their farms, as well as the deeply held values of organic farmers who dread the incursion of genetically modified crops into their expanding enterprise. And, Winston shows us, these contrasting attitudes transcend national borders, with troubling counterparts and consequences in the developing world.
As he seeks a middle ground where concerns about genetic engineering can be rationally discussed and resolved, Winston gives us, at long last, a full and balanced view of the forces at play in the chaotic debate over agricultural biotechnology."
Looks interesting - IM
Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution
Deals with the health panic surrounding cellular phones that developed in the mid-1990s. Treating the issue as
more 'social construction' than evident scientific problem, it tells the story of how this originally American anxiety diffused internationally, having an even bigger impact in countries such as Italy. Burgess highlights the contrasting reactions to the issue ranging from positive indifference in Finland to those such as the UK where precautionary measures were taken. These differences are located within the emergence of a precautionary culture driven by institutional insecurity that first appeared in the US and is now most evident in Europe. Anxieties about cell phone radiowaves are also situated historically in the very different reactions to technologies such as x-rays and in the more similar
'microwave suspicions' about television. In addition, Burgess outlines a history and sociology of what is, despite media-driven anxieties, a spectacularly successful device "
Hmm. And:
Mark L. Winston Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone
"With genetically modified crops we have entered uncharted territory--where visions of the triumph of biotechnology in agriculture vie with dire views of medical and environmental disaster. For two years Mark L. Winston traveled this fraught territory at home and abroad, listening to farmers, industry spokespeople, regulators, and researchers, canvassing high-security laboratories, environmentalist enclaves, and cyberspace, making a thorough survey of the facts, opinions, and practices deployed by opponents and proponents of transgenic crops.
Through his sympathetic portrayal of the passions on all sides, Winston brings a clear, unbiased perspective to this bewildering landscape. Traveling with Winston, we see the excitement and curiosity that pervade laboratories developing genetically modified crops, as well as the panic and outrage among dedicated opponents of agricultural biotechnology; the desperation of conventional farmers as they look to science for solutions to the problems driving them from their farms, as well as the deeply held values of organic farmers who dread the incursion of genetically modified crops into their expanding enterprise. And, Winston shows us, these contrasting attitudes transcend national borders, with troubling counterparts and consequences in the developing world.
As he seeks a middle ground where concerns about genetic engineering can be rationally discussed and resolved, Winston gives us, at long last, a full and balanced view of the forces at play in the chaotic debate over agricultural biotechnology."
Looks interesting - IM
Swiss Re on Electrosmog
Insurance firm perspective on "electrosmog" - even without "scientific proof", plaintiffs are liable to win suits.
Insurance firm perspective on "electrosmog" - even without "scientific proof", plaintiffs are liable to win suits.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
SCTPLS Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences. Lots of good links. (But does inclusion of data on sunspots tell us that Stapledon, Beford etc were right about stars being alive?)
UNRISD: Publications | Conference News: Social Knowledge and International Policy Making: Exploring the Linkage
does UN research make a difference - outcomes of a conference.
does UN research make a difference - outcomes of a conference.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
hearusnow.org: Home Page US (very) consumer advocacy site on telecomms issues, media ownership, etc.
