UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 14.11 Free with a free account
The Broader Relationship Between Scientific Progress, Innovation, and Human Society
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 14: Tomorrow's Technology: AI, Biotech, IoT, and the Connected FutureSection 14.11 · lesson 99 of 11616 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How to Approach Difficult Choices When Technology Creates Competing Interests →← Intelligent Climate Control, Security, and Maintenance in Modern BuildingsNext lesson: How to Approach Difficult Choices When Technology Creates Competing Interests →
In this lesson
Adoption, social choices, responsible innovation, and precaution under uncertainty.
- Explain diffusion, the S-curve, and the adopter categories.
- Compare technological determinism with social shaping.
- Apply responsible innovation and the repeatable AREA framework.
- Explain precaution, evidence burdens, and proportional responses.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,899 words). Read along, or search it.
Tomorrow's Technology: AI, Biotech, IoT, and the Connected Future
Innovation and Society
Scientific progress changes everyday life, while society influences which technologies are developed and adopted. Four ideas explain that relationship across different innovations and their effects on society. Diffusion examines how ideas spread, including the groups that adopt them at different stages. An S-shaped curve describes accumulated adoption, although successful diffusion is never automatically guaranteed. Technological determinism emphasizes technology’s social influence, while social shaping emphasizes choices that affect development. The bicycle example shows how one technology means different things to different users. Responsible innovation examines consequences while research and design decisions can still change the work. Its dimensions connect anticipation, reflection, and wider participation with changes in direction. AREA makes those ideas a practical cycle, repeated as projects and their applications develop. Precaution addresses serious or irreversible threats when evidence remains incomplete and decisions cannot wait. These approaches keep artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and connected devices subject to informed social choice.
Diffusion of Innovations
An S-Curve Shows Accumulated Adoption over Time
Everett Rogers first published Diffusion of Innovations in nineteen sixty-two, examining how new ideas spread. His account considers why adoption happens and how quickly innovations move through a population. A cumulative adoption curve counts everyone who has adopted up to a particular time. It can begin slowly, accelerate as adoption gains momentum, and level off as fewer additional adopters remain. That produces the familiar S-shaped pattern, illustrated here without using measured data or forecasting. The horizontal scale represents illustrative time, without assigning particular years to adoption stages. The vertical scale measures cumulative adopters as a percentage, rather than arrivals during one period. A bell-shaped adoption-rate curve asks a different question: how many new adopters arrive within each period? Adding successive periods produces the accumulated total, connecting those two different kinds of curve. Real innovations can stall, fail, or reach only part of a population instead of complete adoption. Interpret the actual setting carefully, using the model as a pattern rather than a forecast.
Adopter Categories
Different Groups Join at Different Stages
Adopter categories group people by their relative adoption timing within a particular social system. Innovators represent two point five percent; they take early risks and can absorb failure. Early adopters represent thirteen point five percent, often serving as respected community opinion leaders. Their experience can legitimize unfamiliar innovations, giving others social evidence alongside the technical information. The early majority represents thirty-four percent, typically waiting deliberately for evidence that an innovation works. The late majority also represents thirty-four percent, approaching adoption skeptically after it becomes established. Economic conditions or social pressure can encourage that group to join a widespread practice. The remaining sixteen percent, called laggards, favor established practices and may never actually adopt. Those are model proportions, rather than exact percentages every community must reproduce. Early adopters matter beyond their share, because their credibility connects innovators with the larger majority. Categories concern particular innovations, rather than permanent rankings of people’s worth or intelligence.
Adoption Attributes
Technical Sophistication Alone Does Not Explain Diffusion
Rogers identified five adoption attributes, going beyond how sophisticated or technically impressive an innovation appears. Relative advantage asks whether it improves on what potential adopters already use or do. An impressive invention offers little advantage if it fails to solve their actual problem. Compatibility asks whether adoption fits existing values, needs, and habits, reducing difficulties in everyday integration. Complexity concerns difficulty in understanding or use; lower difficulty can make useful innovations more approachable. Trialability permits a limited experiment before a larger commitment, helping people judge suitability with less exposure. Observability concerns visible results, allowing others to recognize benefits through someone else’s actual experience. A small trial and visible improvement reduce uncertainty, while compatibility makes change easier to incorporate. A practical innovation with these attributes may spread more readily than a technically impressive alternative. The influences are not guarantees, because resources, institutions, and practical conditions also affect adoption. Understanding diffusion requires people’s experience, rather than technical performance measures alone.
Technology and Society
Ask What Drives Change and Which Choices Remain Open
Diffusion describes an innovation’s spread, while a deeper question concerns what drives technological and social change. Technological determinism emphasizes internal technological development, treating society mainly as adapting to its possibilities. A hard version portrays development as autonomous and unstoppable, leaving little room for social choice. A softer version treats technology as constraining possibilities, while people still choose within those constraints. In eighteen forty-seven, Karl Marx contrasted the hand-mill’s social setting with organization around the steam-mill. His illustration links production technologies and society, rather than explaining every specific historical change. That shorthand leaves out much of Marx’s broader, more nuanced social analysis. Social shaping emphasizes the social, economic, and political influences on technological design and development. Users, designers, institutions, and regulators can shape development, rather than receive an inevitable result. Mutual shaping recognizes both directions of influence, as technologies also change conditions for later decisions. Whether a path appears fixed or open affects the perceived value of organizing or redesigning.
Interpretive Flexibility
Different Riders Valued Different Bicycle Designs
Interpretive flexibility means different social groups can understand the same emerging technology in different ways. The bicycle example concerns competing designs in the eighteen eighties, rather than one inevitable improvement. Some young male riders valued high-wheeled bicycles for speed, excitement, and the challenge of riding. Other potential users, including women and older riders, emphasized instability, danger, or practical difficulty. These examples show differing priorities, without assuming every member of a group thought alike. One rider’s thrilling feature could be another person’s reason to avoid using the bicycle. The lower-wheeled, chain-driven safety bicycle addressed stability and access concerns, helping another design become established. That outcome reflected social preferences alongside engineering possibilities, rather than purely autonomous technical logic. Materials and physical performance still matter; a socially preferred design must also work in practice. Engineers, users, and regulators can negotiate which problems deserve attention and which trade-offs are acceptable. Asking whose concerns count can change a technology’s meaning and its design.
Responsible Innovation
Make Ethical Reflection Part of the Work Itself
Responsible innovation treats future consequences as a shared responsibility within present research and design. European science policy embraced it during the early twenty tens, emphasizing continuing ethical reflection. In twenty thirteen, Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten developed a four-dimension framework. Anticipation explores plausible benefits, risks, and wider consequences, including uncertainties that make prediction difficult. It asks what might happen, without claiming knowledge of every possible future outcome beforehand. Reflexivity examines assumptions, purposes, and uncertainties, helping researchers recognize blind spots in their own work. Inclusion brings relevant outside perspectives into participation, going beyond the researchers and funders directly involved. Responsiveness asks whether those questions and discussions can actually change the direction of the work. The first three dimensions produce insights, while responsiveness lets them affect decisions. Inviting people to speak is insufficient if their contributions cannot influence the actual choices. Responsible innovation connects ethical learning with action, rather than reflecting only after innovations spread.
AREA Framework
Repeat Anticipation, Reflection, Engagement, and Action
The UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council uses AREA as a practical innovation framework. Its stages are anticipate, reflect, engage, and act, connecting ethical reflection with continuing project decisions. Anticipate explores possible impacts and questions, without assuming a prediction identifies every future risk. Reflect examines purposes, motivations, assumptions, and uncertainties, including how researchers understand their own responsibilities. Engage involves relevant people in discussion, including different perspectives and opportunities for informed deliberation. Act uses what is learned to influence decisions and the direction of research or development. AREA is a repeatable cycle, rather than a checklist completed once before the project begins. New evidence can reveal previously unclear risks, prompting another round of anticipation and reflection. Changing applications and stakeholder concerns can also justify renewed engagement and a different response. Repeating the cycle connects ethical reflection with actual development, instead of an outdated initial review. The test is whether continuing learning affects the work’s purposes, design choices, or future trajectory.
Precautionary Principle
Scientific Uncertainty Need Not Prevent Protective Action
The precautionary principle addresses plausible serious or irreversible harm when scientific certainty remains incomplete. Its modern environmental-policy history includes West Germany in the nineteen seventies, emphasizing foresight in decisions. The German term Vorsorgeprinzip expresses that approach, without suggesting perfect prediction of future harm. The nineteen ninety-two Rio Declaration gave the approach broad international recognition through its fifteenth principle. That formulation concerns serious or irreversible environmental damage, and cost-effective measures to prevent degradation. Incomplete scientific certainty should not justify postponing those measures, with countries acting according to their capabilities. The aim is a defensible decision under uncertainty, rather than automatically waiting for conclusive damage. Examine plausible threats using available evidence, because uncertainty differs from a completely unsupported possibility. Responses depend on the circumstances, and precaution does not automatically demand a blanket prohibition. Rio’s wording also does not demand absolute proof of safety from every new technology’s proponent. Ask what protection is appropriate while knowledge remains incomplete and the stakes may be serious.
Evidence and Debate
Who Must Address the Uncertainty before Proceeding?
A burden of proof identifies who must establish the evidence needed for a particular decision. An illustrative wait-for-harm approach burdens those seeking intervention, allowing exposure to continue during scientific uncertainty. A stronger precautionary approach can require proponents to establish an adequate safety case before proceeding. That shifts who addresses uncertainty, without imposing the same legal rule in every jurisdiction. Many existing systems require evidence before market entry, so that contrast is not universally descriptive. The European Commission’s guidance treats shifting the burden as possible, rather than an automatic general rule. Critics argue that demanding absolute safety requires proving a negative, an impossible standard for many innovations. They challenge inconsistent application and restrictions disproportionate to the seriousness and likelihood of harm. Supporters argue that conclusive evidence of irreversible damage may arrive after prevention becomes impossible. A proportionate approach considers protective options and their consequences, rather than treating every uncertainty identically. Distinguish adequate safety evidence from promises of zero risk, and remain open to new findings.
Jurisdiction and Scope
Compare Specific GMO Rules rather than Blanket Labels
Genetically modified crops show why jurisdiction and the precise activity matter in precautionary regulation. Germany’s cultivation opt-outs include MON eight-ten maize, while a European decision preserves a research exception. That twenty sixteen decision shows why describing every use as banned would be misleading. Peru’s environmental-release moratorium lasts through December thirty-first, twenty thirty-five, covering specified living modified organisms. Its cultivation and rearing scope includes aquatic organisms, rather than every possible biotechnology use. Exclusions include confined research and specified food, feed, or processing imports, under their applicable rules. U.S. oversight involves the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and agriculture department. Requirements depend on product and use, rather than simply allowing everything until damage occurs. These examples distinguish cultivation, research, and consumption, instead of labeling entire countries unrestricted or prohibited. Compare evidence requirements with the seriousness and likelihood of harm, and consequences of acting or waiting. Defensible responses need an appropriate scope, while new evidence can justify reconsidering their terms.
Review and Connect
Keep Innovation a Matter of Informed Social Choice
Early adopters influence success beyond their share, because their credibility helps others consider the innovation. They bridge innovators and the majority, supplying social evidence alongside an innovation’s visible performance. Interpretive flexibility explains why bicycle speed meant excitement to some riders and danger to others. Those meanings shaped designs, showing how technical development also involves priorities and social choices. Responsiveness allows learning to change the work’s direction, rather than stopping at information gathering. Without it, anticipation, reflection, and participation may have little effect on decisions. Stronger precautionary versions can require proponents to support safety before proceeding, shifting the evidence burden. Precise legal rules vary, rather than requiring every innovation to prove that harm is impossible. Critics question impossible standards and excessive restrictions, while supporters stress the costs of irreversible harm. Apply these questions to artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and connected devices, considering adoption, design, and social choice. Continuing responsible innovation and proportionate precaution turn that interaction into informed decisions as understanding develops.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Broader Relationship Between Scientific Progress, Innovation, and Human Society
What does the S-curve in diffusion of innovations show?
What is the difference between technological determinism and the social shaping of technology?
What are the four dimensions of responsible innovation?
What is the precautionary principle?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →