Soc 110 Midterm 1
#1)         Shaer’s article from The Atlantic addresses the social consequences of an increased use of DNA testing in popular culture and criminal justice systems, as DNA testing technology continues to advance. With popular crime investigation shows and highly publicized trials such as the OJ Simpson trial, an expectation of infallibility associated with the use of, and conclusiveness of a DNA test was thereby created in society; what Shaer referred to as the “CSI Effect.” Sectors of the criminal justice system took to this assumption, increasing the use of DNA tests in criminal investigations marginally. This investment of trust in DNA testing technology and efficacy, unfortunately, came at the consequence of viewing these technologies to be without error, viewing the complexities of operation that exist in producing a DNA test as irrelevant. However, DNA testing technologies are not immune to error, and producing a DNA test is a highly complex process. In many cases of the criminal justice system, DNA tests are administered poorly or sloppily, or lawyers or judges who aim solely for a conviction, interpret the results of a test prematurely. This technology is seemingly making humans more irrelevant, for better or for worse, as people begin to trust the use and conclusiveness of a DNA test over the imperfect intuitions and investigations of detectives, witnesses, and human-associated factors in crime solving. These circumstances may result in wrongful convictions, such as the case of Josiah Sutton. Additional negative social consequences include a misplaced trust in the capability and accuracy of human problem solving by detectives and crime scene investigators, and conversely, an ill-advised trust in technologies that present as many opportunities for error as it does certainty.
#2)         Toyama’s article uses the case of Microsoft’s Multipoint technology to argue that in spite of the increased amount of awards, recognition, and public successes of teaching-assistant technologies, for the schools that need assistance most, these technologies rarely equate to students’ improvement of learning or schools’ improvement of infrastructure. Toyama demonstrates the idea that merely implementing education technologies to schools, even if they are critically acclaimed and globally backed by corporations, doesn’t solve the infrastructural issues that plague education systems, particularly those in less-developed areas. “Clever Gadgets” don’t automatically inspire apathetic administrations; the addition of digital content doesn’t suddenly improve the teaching of an undertrained teacher. The social consequences of these technologies rarely result in better student-teacher relationships; they often present itself as more of a distraction to students than a benefit. In addition, the schools targeted to use these technologies are often without the proper IT support required to keep these technologies running, resulting in a bigger financial hole for the school after these systems break. The issue of schools turning to technologies to improve their education, conversely allocating resources away from the investment in teaching staff and infrastructural improvements, speaks to the assumption of human irrelevance with respect to technology. These gadgets are increasingly seen as a solution to problems in education as opposed to investments in the teachers and students, themselves. These technologies will increasingly make humans more irrelevant as teaching technologies improve, and as these technologies take more time, attention, and opportunities away from teachers and their students.