In Questioning Technology, Andrew Feenberg argues that since the way we use technology is so strongly tied to our social structure, there can be no serious political change without a corresponding change in technology. To oversimplify, in order to change the world, we must first change the way we view and use technology as an integral part of our everyday lives.

In a chapter of the book on The Limits of Technical Rationality, he aims to formulate a politically aware version of technological change via constructivism (as opposed to determinism). Along the course, he acknowledges that people usually fear those things that they don’t fully understand:

I call the public’s response to new and imponderable risks it is not equipped to evaluate “rational dread.” Childhood dread of the monster under the bed can usually be stilled by more information– a simple glance may suffice. But the dread of modern technologies such as atomic energy resists informational strategies. On the contrary, often more information leads to still greater concern. To make matters worse, the hope that expert advice could unburden the public has long since been disappointed as general skepticism overtakes the authority of knowledge. [p.92]

This reminded me of a news story that has been popping up all over the place lately, about a man in Alaska who wants to install in his home garage a Cyclotron– a small particle accelerator donated to him by Johns Hopkins University. According to the article, his reasons are upstanding– his lost his father to cancer and such accelerators are used to produce the radioactive material necessary to expose cancerous tissues in PET scans. These devices are rare in Alaska and he wants to provide a medical resource that he hopes will reduce the suffering of those with cancer.

However, the community reacted in fear because they did not understand the technology. The Community Council went so far as liken the device to Three Mile Island. In the article a top nuclear scientist is quoted when asked about the safety of the device:

“Cyclotrons are not nuclear reactors,” explains Roger Dixon of the Fermi National Accelerator laboratory or Fermilab in Illinois, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. “Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves.”

Yet, as Feenberg might say, general skepticism overtakes the authority of knowledge. Despite the testimony of scientists about the safety of the device, local lawmakers “rushed to introduce emergency legislation banning the use of cyclotrons in home businesses.”