You might even start by taking a constructivistic point of view when looking at how Science or Technology is produced. This might include who was involved when developing certain things and who was excluded and which impact this might have on the outcome.

It is "almost clear" from a philosophic point of view. But my question represents rather  the approach of someone who: is involved in creating  artifacts and trying to use in practice results of scientific research. Because - apart of being the engineer - I am also the academic teacher, so that my question is very practical, I am asking for experiences of RG colleagues in: assessing new products and technologies according to the TA paradigm and including the philosophical and ethic problems in teaching students, mainly in technical universities.

Dear  Jan Kaźmierczak

I support you in this area and the subject is very good and serves communities and leads to putting communities in the right way

Regards

Raid

Dear Raid, thank you so much for your support. Perhaps you could recommend my question to your RG colleagues.

The wider the discussion, the more relevant and representative the results will be.

Best regards,

Jan

Dear Jan,

Because of the social impact of technology on individuals' everyday life, it makes much sense to address technological problems, namely its impact on individuals' everyday life and their psychological development and education. As I see it, technology might be named as applied science.  It suffices to say that the more a country supports research, namely basic research, the more the country is technologically developed.  Note, however, that if science gives rise to technology, technology is also, say, a source of inspiration to science. In other words, there is a kind of bootstrap relationship between science and technology. 

Science like technology  have generally beneficial effects on one's life (e.g., by using computers, TV, and so on, we can say that we have at our reach all that happens all over the word). Science and technology, however, can have detrimental effects on individuals, societies and countries. For example, nuclear weapons -- which often are a result of basic research were, are, and will certainly be misapplied, that is, not used, say, for the well-being  of mankind, but rather used  for individuals', societies', and countries' destruction, such as it happens in war situations (see, for example, the case of the atomic bombs that fell, in  1944, into two Japanese cities). As science and technology can have, say, a dark side, they both raise ethical or moral problems. So , as you mention in your question, it is more than appropriate to think of an ethic of science, and an ethic of technology. When science and technology are misapplied, we might say that they both violate what I call the three fundamental ethics: the ethic of justice, whose main injunction is that we should not treat others unfairly (see, for example, L. Kohlberg's theory of moral development), the ethic of care, whose main injunction is that  we should not turn away from someone in need (see, for example, C. Gilligan's approach to moral development), and the ethic of conservation, whose main injunction is that we should protect nature (e.g, water, air, and earth) not only because it is useful for us -- anthropocentric ecological-moral reasoning -- but also because it has value in itself -- biocentric ecological-moral reasoning (see, for example, P. Kahn's work on environmental values).  

In your question you speak about philosophy of science. This is an important issue when addressing scientific and technological questions. Note that science whatever only progresses through a conceptual clarification of concepts, a job generally attributed to philosophers, namely to philosophers of science .Suffice it to say that a scientific study or research conducted in an atmosphere of intellectual confusion, rarely, if ever, clarifies anything. I know of no great scientist who was not interested in theoretical, and even, philosophical issues. So, to speak of science and technology amounts, to  a great  extent, to speak of philosophy of science. It is generally alleged that if one wants to get ahead in any domain of knowledge we have to have a theory or a theoretical framework.

In a nutshell, it is very nice of you to allude in your question to problems of ethic and philosophy of science. I even  think that these problems are deeply intertwined with science and technology assessment.  Your main question is the following: Apart of the general problem "Philosophy of Science", are also sub-problems like "Ethics of Science" or "Science Assessment" worth to be discussed?? From my foregoing considerations, you can see that my answer is a  justified affirmative answer.

I hope that I have got the gist of your concerns and that this be of some help.

Best regards

Dear Colleagues, thank you very much for you positive assessment of my question. As I understand, we do agree that it is reasonable and potentially fruitful to discuss about "Ethics of Science" and "Science Assessment". So that: let's do it! I am going to open the new projects with the topics as above and I hope you will agree to collaborate in it.

I have to confess that - as a Mechanical Engineer by education - I am really fascinated by the ethical problems in contemporary Engineering and also by the possibility to debate with scientists from various areas about aspects of assessment not only the technologies, but also scientific (even in basic research) activities using the criterion of social impact.

In this debate some questions have appeared, which are not answered. For instance:

1. who should be involved in the processes of Science or technology Assessment?

2. who should initiate such processes and who should be the "final user" of their results?

3. is it necessary/possible to educate young people (student) for future participation in it?

4. the problems of ethics should be or have to be included into program of technical studies?

5. .......?

I do understand, that it is the easiest thing to ask question, but - to me - properly formulated questions are of key importance if we intend to get proper answers.

Once again: if you see a sense of it, I invite you to further common work :-)