Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Values, technologies, and epistemology

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to make possible dialogue between those who claim that technologies are coded with social, political, or ethical values and those who argue that they are value-neutral. To demonstrate the relevance of this bridge-building project, the controversy regarding agrifood biotechnology will be used as a case study. Drawing on work by L. H. Nelson about the nature of human knowledge-building enterprises and E. F. Kittay’s account of the relationally-constituted self, the argument will be made that all technologies embody the values of the communities that created them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Babinard J., T. Josling (2001). The stakeholders and the struggle for public opinion, regulatory control and market development. In: G. C. Nelson (ed), Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. San Diego, California: Academic Press. (pp. 81–96)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessin, R. (2004). Bt-corn for corn borer control. University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Lexington, Kentucky. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/fldcrops/ef118.htm on February 1, 2007

  • Borgmann A. (1984). Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgmann A. (2004). Focal things and practice. In: D. M. Kaplan (ed), Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. (pp. 115–136)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. (2000). ‹Feed the world’ opportunity seen for GM salmon. The Guardian (London), April 22, 2000. Retrieved␣from http://environment.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1849281,00.html on March 1, 2007

  • Charles D. (2001). Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. and C. Spinosa (2004). “Highway bridges and feasts: Heidegger and Borgmann on how to affirm technology.” University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://socrates.berkeley.edu/∼hdreyfus/html/paper_highway.html on March 1, 2007

  • Farish, W. (2003). “Biotech is benign: Europe’s continued blocking of GM imports is illegal, unjustified and founded on␣ignorance.” The Guardian (London), June 4, 2003. Retrieved␣from http://environment.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1849333,00.html on March 1, 2007

  • Friends of the Earth International (2006). “Who benefits from GM crops? Monsanto and the corporate-driven genetically modified crop revolution.” Friends of Earth International 110(January). Retrieved from http://www.foei.org/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2006full.pdf on March 1, 2007

  • Freivalds J., D. Natz (1999). Overcoming phood phobias: Changing perceptions about bio-engineering products. Communication World 16(6): 26–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Goss P. J. (1996). Guiding the hand that feeds: Toward socially optimal appropriability in agricultural biotechnology innovation. California Law Review 84(5): 1395–1436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho M-W (2000). Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare?: Turning the Tide on the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business. 2nd Rev&Up edition. New York, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group

  • Jaggar A. (1983). Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso D. D. T. (2003). The migration of salmon from nature to biotechnology. In: R. A. Schurman, D. D. T. Kelso (eds), Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. (pp. 84–110)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. F. (2000). “Rationality, personhood, and Peter Singer on the fate of severely impaired infants.” American Philosophical Association Newsletter: Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine. 99(2)

  • Mack, D. (1998). “Food for all living in a GM world.” New Scientist, October 31, 1998. Retrieved from http://www. newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.300-food-for-all.html on March 1, 2007

  • Martineau B. (2001). First Fruit: The Creation of Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Genetically Engineered Food. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson L. H. (1990). Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson L. H. (1993). Epistemological communities. In: L. Alcoff, E. Potter (eds), Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge. (pp. 121–160)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxfam (2003). “Dumping without borders: How US agricultural policies are destroying the livlihoods of Mexican farmers.” Oxfam Briefing Paper No. 50. Retrieved from http://www. oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/downloads/bp50_corn. pdf on December 1, 2007

  • Postman N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York, New York: Alfred Knopf

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1997). “Science and the story that we need.” First Things 69(January): 29–32. Retrieved from http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9701/articles/postman.html on December 1, 2006

  • Pringle P. (2003). Food Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto-The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest. New York, New York: Simon and Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W. V. (1969). The two dogmas of empiricism. In: L. W. Sumner, J. Woods (eds), Necessary Truth: A Book of Readings. New York, New York: Random House. (pp. 116–140)

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W. V. (1973). Posits and reality. In: R. E. Grandy (ed), Theories and Observation in Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. (pp. 154–161)

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W. V. (1981). Theories and Things. Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva V. (2000b). Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. Cambridge, Massachusetts: South End Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. (2000). “The ‹golden rice’ hoax: When public relations replaces science.” Diverse Woman for Diversity. New Delhi, India. Retrieved from http://www.ddh.nl/duurzaam/duurzaamlijst/archief/msg00122.html on March 1, 2007

  • The Economist (2006). “Uncle Sam’s Teat.” The Economist, September 9, 2006 380(8494). Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7887994 on November 1, 2006

  • Thompson P. B. (1997). Science policy and moral purity: The case of animal biotechnology. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson P. B. (2000). Discourse ethics for agricultural biotechnology: Its limits and its inevitability: A response to Jamieson. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 275–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuman, M. (2002). “Holding on, and letting go: A review of holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the millennium.” Techne 6(1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n1/ on March 1, 2007

  • Verbeek, P-P. (2002). “Devices of engagement: On Borgmann’s philosophy of information and technology.” Techne 6(1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n1/ on March 1, 2007

  • de Vries G. E. (2005). Second generation GM plant products. In: P. Pechan, G. E. de Vries (eds), Genes on the Menu: Facts for Knowledge-based Decisions. New York: Springer. (pp. 165–173)

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L. (2004a). Do artifacts have politics? In: D. M. Kaplan (ed), Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. (pp. 289–302)

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L. (2004b). Technologies as forms of life. In: D. M. Kaplan (ed), Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. (pp. 103–114)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Rhode Island, 176 Chafee Hall, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA

    Zahra Meghani

Authors
  1. Zahra Meghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zahra Meghani.

Additional information

Zahra Meghani is an assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Rhode Island. Her research interests are philosophy of technology, feminist theory (especially feminist epistemology and feminist philosophy of science), normative ethics, practical ethics (especially health care ethics), disability issues, and political theory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meghani, Z. Values, technologies, and epistemology. Agric Hum Values 25, 25–34 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9074-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9074-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation