Abstract
A common tactic in public debates over science and technology is to dismissively label innovations as mere technological fixes. This tactic can be readily observed in the long debate over agricultural biotechnology. While these criticisms are often superficial rhetorical tactics, they point to deeper philosophical disagreements about the role of technology in society. Examining the technological fix criticism can clarify these underlying philosophical disagreements and the debate over biotechnology. The first part of this essay discusses the origins of the notion of a technological fix and distinguishes two types of technological fix criticisms, philosophical and practical. These distinctions are then applied to clarify and evaluate arguments for and against agricultural biotechnology. This analysis should clarify the debates over agricultural biotechnology and bring to light fundamental philosophical differences over the role of technology in agriculture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The key terms in Altieri’s criticism of biotechnology are “technological fix” and “magic bullet.” It is not clear in the above remarks, but the notions of a “magic bullet” and a “technological fix” are conceptually distinct. For a discussion of the magic bullet criticism of biotechnology see Scott 2005. In this essay I will examine the technological fix criticism.
In the 1973 study of technological fixes, Technological Shortcuts to Social Change, the authors write that it is almost a matter of definition to say that technological fixes “deal only with the symptoms of the problems and do not get at its fundamental causes, that they are only illusory solutions and cannot really handle the problems” (Etzioni and Remp 1973, p. 153).
LeCain’s analysis of technological fixes is more or less consistent with the 1973 study, Technological Shortcuts to Social Change. In that book, the authors, Amitai Etzioni and Richard Remp, examine several technological fixes—among them are fixes for heroine addiction, drunk driving and gun control. Etzioni and Remp reached the following conclusion: “When all is said and done, what did we find in our examination of specific technological shortcuts? Do the shortcuts we studied work? In view of the preceding analysis, obviously the answer will not be a simple yes or no. The question is: What works for what and whom? Do technological shortcuts solve the problem? None of the technologies we studied does that….Do the technological shortcuts work for important segments of the problem? In our considered judgment… the answer is a positive one” (Etzioni and Remp 1973).
References
Altieri, M. (2000). Food first special report no. 1. Genetic engineering and agriculture: The myths, environmental risks, and alternatives. Oakland, CA: Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy.
Borlaug, N. E. (2000). Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124, 487–490.
Conway, G. (2002). Open letter to greenpeace. In M. Ruse & D. Castle (Eds.), Genetically modified foods, debating biotechnology (pp. 63–65). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Dewey, J. (1981–1990). John Dewey: The Later Works: 1925–1953. In J. Boydston (Ed.), Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Drengson, A. R. (1984). The sacred and the limits of the technological fix. Zygon, 19(3), 259–275.
Easterbrook, G. (1997). Forgotten benefactor of humanity. Atlantic Monthly, 279(1), 75–82.
Etzioni, A., & Remp, R. (1973). Technological shortcuts and social change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Evenson, R. E., & Gollen, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), 758–762.
Goklany, I. M., & Trewavas, A. J. (2003). How technology can reduce our impact on the earth. Nature, 423, 115.
Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. (2009). The golden rice project, http://www.goldenrice.org. Accessed 28 Oct 2005.
Hillel, D. (1991). Out of the earth, civilization and the life of the soil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Lansing, S. J. (1991). Priests and programmers, technologies of power in the engineered landscape of Bali. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LeCain, T. L. (2004). When everybody wins does the environment lose? The environmental techno-fix in twentieth-century mining. In L. Rosner (Ed.), The technological fix, how people use technology to create and solve social problems (pp. 137–153). New York: Routledge.
Machbub, B., Ludwig, H. F., & Gunaratnam, D. (1988). Environmental impact from agrochemicals in Bali (Indonesia). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 11, 1–23.
Marx, L. (1983). Are science and society going in the same direction? Science, Technology and Human Values, 8(4), 6–9.
McKibben, B. (2003). Enough. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Paarlberg, R. (2005). From the green revolution to the gene revolution. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(1), 38–40.
Rosner, L. (2004). The technological fix, how people use technology to create and solve social problems. New York: Routledge.
Rosset, P. (2002). Taking seriously the claim that genetic engineering could end world hunger: A critical analysis. In B. Baileyand & M. Lapppé (Eds.), Engineering the farm, ethical and social aspects of agricultural biotechnology (pp. 81–93). Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Scott, D. (2005). The magic bullet criticism of agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 259–267.
Shiva, V. (2002). Golden rice hoax: When public relations replace science. In M. Ruse & D. Castle (Eds.), Genetically modified foods, debating biotechnology (pp. 58–62). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Teich, A. H. (1993). Technology and the future (6th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Thompson, P. (1995). Spirit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics. New York: Routledge.
Thompson, P. (1997). Food biotechnology an ethical perspective. London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
Tillman, D. (1998). The greening of the green revolution. Nature, 396, 211–212.
Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Trewavas, A. (2001). The population/biodiversity paradox. Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness. Plant Physiology, 125, 174–179.
Trewavas, A. (2002). GM food is the best option we have. In G. Pence (Ed.), The ethics of food, a reader for the twenty-first century (pp. 148–155). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Volti, R. (1995). Society and technological change. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Weinberg, A. M. (1969). Reflections on big science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
White, L. T. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.
Winner, L. (2004). Technology as forms of life. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of technology (pp. 103–113). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful suggestions for improving this paper. In particular, I would like to thank Blake Francis for his numerous comments and suggestions that were extremely beneficial.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, D. The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate. J Agric Environ Ethics 24, 207–226 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9253-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9253-7