Technology and Development:
Associated Risk in Adoption of
Technology
1
Technology and human identity
• Technology has been at the heart of human progress since
earliest times. Our pre-human ancestors fashioned sticks to
reach for food, used leaves to sop up water and hurled
stones in anger, just as chimpanzees do today.
• The first human species is named Homo habilis—the
“handy man”. Its fossils from some 2.5 million years ago lie
with chipped pebbles, the first unequivocal stone tools.
Early Homo may have used the perishable technologies of
gourds to drink water and leather slings to carry infants.
About half a million years ago, Homo erectus fashioned
elegant leaf shaped hand axes throughout Africa, Asia and
Europe and was apparently using fire.
• Our own species, Homo sapiens—the “wise man” from
some 40,000 years ago in Europe, the Middle East and
Australia— made tools of stone, bone and antler as well as
necklaces for adornment, and drew symbolic art on rock
walls—technology in the service of ideas and
communication (Jolly, 2000). 2
3
Technology and Human Development
• Twenty first Century may be termed as a period of
rapid technological developments and information
revolution.
• Infuse tremendous challenges and opportunities in
social, economic, political, technical and cultural
processes affecting nearly all economies.
• The use of computers and networks in information
dissemination has greatly enhanced human
development in our society.
4
• The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people's
choices. These choices can be infinite and can change over
time.
• People often value achievements that do not show up at all,
or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater
access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services,
more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical
violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural
freedoms and sense of participation in community activities.
• The objective of development is to create an enabling
environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative
lives. (Mahbub ul Haq)
5
Personal development
• Reaching more of personal potential
• Being more satisfied and fulfilled in life
• People understanding their own personal values
• People knowing themselves more
• Knowing own skills, talents, qualities
• Knowing what they like, what is really satisfying
• Knowing about strengths and weaknesses, and how to
complement them by working together with others in
teams
Role of I T
• I&T in education.
• I&T in professional development
• Personal development planning
• E-portfolios.
6
• It is believe that people gain access to technological
once they have more income.
• Economic growth creates opportunities for useful
innovations to be created and diffused.
• However, the process can also be reversed:
investments in technology, like investments in
education, can equip people with better tools and
make them more productive and prosperous.
• Technology is a tool, not just a reward, for growth
and development.
7
• The revolution of IT sector is a blessing for Human
Development.
• The Internet, the wireless telephone and other information and
communications technology enable people to communicate and
obtain information in ways never before possible, dramatically
opening up possibilities to participate in decisions that affect
their lives.
• Information and communications technology can provide
rapid, low-cost access to information about almost all areas of
human activity.
• From distance learning in Turkey to long-distance medical
diagnosis in the Gambia, to information on market prices of
grain in India, the Internet is breaking barriers of geography,
making markets more efficient, creating opportunities for
income generation and enabling increased local participation.
8
• In 1989 biotechnological research into hepatitis B resulted in a
breakthrough vaccine.
• Much more can be done to develop vaccines and treatments for
HIV/AIDS and other diseases endemic in some developing
countries.
• Transgenic offers the hope of crops with higher yields, pest- and
drought-resistant properties and superior nutritional
characteristics—especially for farmers in ecological zones left
behind by the green revolution.
• In China genetically modified rice offers 15% higher yields
without the need for increases in other farm inputs, and modified
cotton (Bt cotton) allows pesticide spraying to be reduced from
30 to 3 times.
9
• Technology is created in response to market pressures—not the
needs of poor people.
• Research and development, personnel and finance are
concentrated in rich countries, led by global corporations and
following the global market demand dominated by high-income
consumers.
• Developing countries may gain especially high rewards from
new technologies, but they also face especially severe challenges
in managing the risks.
• All countries, even the poorest, need to implement policies that
encourage innovation, access and the development of advanced
skills.
• New international initiatives and the fair use of global rules are
needed to channel new technologies towards the most urgent
needs of the world’s poor people. 10
Risk of Technological Change
• Technological advance brings potential benefits and
risks, some of which are not easy to predict.
• Societies respond to these uncertainties by seeking to
maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of
technological change.
• Though the agricultural technology of the green
revolution more than doubled cereal production in Asia
between 1970 and 1995, the impacts on farm workers’
income and on the environment are still hotly debated.
11
Why adopt new technologies?
• Potential benefits: the possibilities for promoting
development through today’s technological
transformations are tremendous in developing countries.
• Costs of inertia versus costs of change: New
technologies often improve on the ones they replace: the
modern jet, for example, is safer and faster than the
propeller aero-plane.
• Means of managing risks: Many potential harms can be
managed and their likelihood reduced through
systematic scientific research, regulation and institutional
capacity. When these capacities are strong, countries
are far more able to ensure that technological change
becomes a positive force for development.
12
• Most developing countries are at a disadvantage in the
face of technological change because they lack the
regulatory institutions needed to manage the risks well.
• But there can be advantages to being technological
followers. Unlike front-runners, followers do not incur the
first-mover risks of using new technologies: they can
instead observe how those risks play out in other
countries.
• They can also learn from others in designing their
regulations and institutions. Moreover, for some
technologies they may be able to establish low-cost
regulatory systems that build on, or even rely on, the
regulatory standards of early adopters.
13
ASSESSING POTENTIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
• Some risks of technological change are rooted in human
behavior and social organization.
• Biotechnological research can be turned into weapons if
governments or terrorists choose that path.
• Could the genes flowing from genetically modified
organisms into non-target organisms endanger non-
target populations?
• Could using mobile telephones cause brain or eye
cancer?
14
Two potential harms may be:
Possible harms to human health: Technologies have
long posed threats to human health. Some pollute air
and water: power plants using fossil fuels produce
sulphur dioxide, which in high concentrations can irritate
the upper respiratory tract. Others can introduce harmful
substances to the body through medicines, such as
thalidomide, or through the food chain.
• With genetically modified foods, the two main concerns
are that the introduction of novel genes could make food
toxic and that they could introduce new allergens into
foods, causing reactions in some people.
15
Possible harms to the environment: Some claim that
genetically modified organisms could destabilize
ecosystems and reduce biodiversity in three ways.
• First, transformed organisms could displace existing
species and change the ecosystem.
• History shows the danger: six European rabbits
introduced in Australia in the 1850s soon multiplied
into 100 million, destroying habitats and native flora
and fauna. Today the rabbits cost Australian
agricultural industries $370 million a year.
16
• Second, gene flow among plants could transfer the novel
genes into related species, leading, for example, to
super weeds.
• Third, the novel genes could have unintended harmful
effects on non-target species. Laboratory studies have
shown that the pollen of Bt corn, designed for pest
control against stem borers, can also kill monarch
butterflies if enough is consumed.
• Some of these risks are the same in every country:
potential harms to health from mobile phones or to
unborn children from thalidomide are no different for
people in Malaysia than in Morocco—though the ability
to monitor and handle them may vary considerably.
17
• But other risks vary significantly: gene flow from
genetically modified corn would be more likely to
happen in an environment with many corn-
related wild species than in one without.
• For this reason, the environmental risks of
biotechnology are often specific to individual
ecosystems and need to be assessed case by
case. Risks to human health are more common
across continents.
18
A full risk assessment needs to weigh the
expected harms of a new technology against its
expected benefits—and compare these to:
• The expected value of harms and benefits of
existing technologies that would be replaced.
• The expected value of harms and benefits of
alternative technologies that might be preferable
to new or existing technologies.
19
TAKING PRECAUTIONS
Precautionary principle often interpreted as the rule that a
country can or should reject the products of new technologies
when full scientific certainty that such products will not cause
harm is lacking.
Use the precautionary principle
• A variety of precautionary principles are in use, ranging from
soft to strong formulations.
• A relatively soft formulation appears in the 1992 Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, where it says
that “to protect the environment, the precautionary approach
shall be widely applied by states according to their capability.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.”
20
• That is, regulators can take cost-effective steps to
prevent serious or irreversible harm even when
there is no certainty that such harm will occur.
• A strong formulation is set out in the 1990 Third
Ministerial Declaration on the North Sea, which
requires governments to “apply the precautionary
principle, that is to take action to avoid potentially
damaging impacts of [toxic] substances . . . even
where there is no scientific evidence to prove a
causal link between emissions and effects.”
• This formulation requires governments to take
action without considering offsetting factors and
without scientific evidence of harm.
21
Six elements might differ between soft and strong
formulations:
• Consideration of benefits and risks in current technology:
Soft formulations guide regulatory action by considering
not only the harmful risks of technological change but
also the potential benefits, as well as the risks of
technology that would be removed. Strong formulations,
in contrast, often examine only the direct risks of the new
technology.
• Cost-effectiveness of prevention: Soft formulations
emphasize the need to balance the costs of preventing
potential environmental harms associated with a new
technology against the costs of those harms. Strong
formulations often do not weigh the costs of prevention.
22
• Certainty of harm or certainty of safety: Unlike in Soft
formulations, Strong formulations often require certainty
of safety to avoid regulatory action (which in complex
and dynamic systems is often impossible to achieve).
• Burden of proof: Soft formulations place the burden of
proof on those who claim that harm will occur if a new
technology is introduced. Strong formulations may shift
the burden of proof to the producers and importers of a
technology, requiring that they demonstrate its safety.
23
• Optional or obligatory action: Soft formulations permit
regulators to take action, while strong formulations often
require action.
• Locus of decision-making: Soft formulations place
authority in regulators, while strong formulations may
vest power in political leaders.
24
BUILDING THE CAPACITY TO MANAGE RISK
• USING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION: TURNING
UNCERTAINTY INTO RISK
In the absence of information, there is uncertainty.
Scientific research generates information about the
likely impacts of a new technology, turning that
uncertainty into risk—the estimated probability that a
certain harmful impact will occur. With more and
better information, risk can be more accurately
predicted and better managed.
25
• ENSURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH
RISK COMMUNICATION
Recent debates on the commercialization of
agricultural biotechnology have underscored the
importance of public participation and education on
its risks—because the public ultimately produces
and consumes the products of new technology.
A recent survey in Australia highlights the need for
better education: 49% of respondents feel that the
risks of agricultural biotechnology outweigh its
benefits, but 59% could not name a specific risk.
26
• CREATING FLEXIBLE INSTITUTIONS AND
DIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES
If societies are to manage technology safely, they
need not only flexible and responsive institutions but
also a range of technology options for creating
alternative solutions—hence the need to invest in
building institutional and research capacity.
27
CHALLENGES FACING DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
• Shortage of skilled personnel.
• Inadequate resources: The cost of establishing and
maintaining a regulatory framework can be a severe
financial demand on poor countries.
• Weak communications strategies: The extent of public
awareness about genetically modified organisms varies
among developing countries, but in many there is no
official communications strategy for informing the public
about them and about how biosafety is being handled.
The typical difficulties of mounting effective public
information campaigns are compounded by high rates of
illiteracy in some countries and the lack of a tradition of
public empowerment and of consumer activists
demanding information and asserting their right to know.
28
• Inadequate feedback mechanisms: Technology is
ultimately put to use not in laboratories but in homes
and schools, on farms and in factories. A user’s
ability to follow safety procedures determines
whether the benefits of technology can be reaped or
will be lost. But mechanisms for providing
information to and gathering feedback from users
may not be well developed. In developing countries
such mechanisms for providing information and
gathering feedback are typically weaker.
29
Source: Paarlberg 2000.
30
