On the Inequality of the World

The section Science Policies for Reducing Social Inequities by Edward Woodhouse and Daniel Sarewitz offers a critical look at some fields where technological developments and science research are clearly biased in favor of developed countries. The topics vary from medical development to military might, and while they raise some good points, their ideas and expectations for scientific research are quite extreme as true equality is hard to define and achieve, even for individual towns, let alone the world.

Medical research and development is largely viewed as a boon to all of society. However, the text brings sharp criticism of the favoritism paid to those who can pay more for services. Citing prior studies they bring up how it’s estimated that only 10% of medical research went towards problems compromising 90% of the global burden of disease in 1999. While these are drastic numbers some issues come up when you realize malnutrition, car accidents, and living condition risks, are counted for the global burden of disease, significant factors that would contribute to the 90% burden without being subjects of great merit for medical research. While it is true that more funding and interest goes from developed countries towards issues faced by developed countries, this is hardly a specific issue of technological injustice. Raising awareness and public support for global responsibility in general seems more directed at the issues behind this imbalance in service.

The use of technological advancements to further military advantages, while unfortunate, is no less stoppable than the existence of wars around the globe. Our own country is participating in war and has a history of vested interest in being able to both defend ourselves and our foreign interests. This is sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, but an aspect of our country (and others) that’s probably here to stay. While technological development has given us a larger advantage over a significant portion of the world than in our past, blaming our wars and conflicts on technological advantage is frequently a, what if, endeavor that’s hard to support. While I agree that slowing down our military development would probably benefit us and that the degree to which military development holds political sway is terrifying, the issue of too much funding for the military has more to do with political and economic interest than technological development.

I found the section overly critical of technological developments as cause of inequality. While the book is about negative issues caused by technology, labeling it as a cause of strife in issues that are motivated by economics and politics while executed using technological tools, feels like scapegoating to me and undermines the credibility of other sections critical of technology.