In this blog post, we will examine the impact of stent technology advancements on heart disease treatment, explore remaining limitations, and review the latest research trends aimed at addressing them.
We live enjoying the benefits of many scientific and technological advancements. Among these technologies, the one most innovatively impacting our lives today is smart technology. As smart technology entered our hands, our perspective on the world completely changed. The advancement of smart technology has created a vast community space. We post our thoughts on social media in real-time, and others see them and immediately express their own thoughts or feelings. Whereas face-to-face interaction was once necessary, smartphones have reshaped people’s concepts of time and space, enabling easier contact through various devices. Moreover, as access to information has dramatically improved, we can now literally obtain all kinds of information with one hand while lying down. Businesses, too, have moved beyond billboards and TV ads, engaging in smart marketing through Facebook, Twitter, and blogs.
The fact that smart technology has deeply permeated our lives is well illustrated by a single photo circulating online. The photo compares us ten years ago and now: ten years ago, we are seated at a table conversing with each other, but now, we are each staring at our smartphones. Thus, technology is having a significant impact on our lives. But is that impact positive or negative?
Building upon the recognition that technology profoundly affects life, there exists a theory that takes this idea a step further. This theory, known as technological determinism, asserts that all changes in our daily lives and social structures are merely byproducts of technological advancement. It posits that technological progress is the central driving force behind social change. Karl Marx articulated this view, stating, “The millstone brought feudal lords into human society, and the steam engine brought industrial capitalists.” In this vein, Lynn Townsend White Jr. addressed horsemanship in his book Society for the History of Technology. He argued that the introduction of stirrups to medieval Western Europe—footrests that, along with saddles, securely fixed the rider’s feet, freeing both hands—dramatically enhanced the combat effectiveness of horsemanship. This, he claimed, became the cause of large-scale conquests, ultimately giving rise to feudalism.
However, this argument has been criticized by counterexamples, such as the Anglo-Saxons, who adopted stirrups around the same time as the Frankish Kingdom yet did not establish feudalism. This is because it overlooks the diverse types of technology, social institutions, and the social processes and choices linking the use of technology. Furthermore, the claim that bad technology creates a bad society faces significant rebuttal from those who believe technology is value-neutral. The notion that technology is value-neutral means that technology itself is strictly neutral, but its meaning or value is determined by the people who use it. Alfred Nobel’s dynamite and Albert Einstein’s atomic bomb are examples of this. Dynamite, developed by Alfred Nobel for industrial use in mining, was primarily employed in warfare. Conversely, the atomic bomb developed during World War II through the Manhattan Project is now utilized in beneficial technologies like nuclear power generation. In essence, technology itself possesses no inherent good or evil; society must use it positively.
In opposition to this technological determinism, a new argument emerged: social constructivism. This theory analyzes the phenomenon where political, economic, organizational, and cultural factors intervene in the process of technological change. It ultimately asserts that technology is a type of social process and develops based on social needs. Social constructivists argue that it is not technological development that causes civilizational shifts, but rather that civilizational changes are socially constructed. For example, stirrups were developed in situations where maintaining balance was crucial during frequent mounted combat. Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker supported this argument by examining the evolution of the bicycle. They criticized essentialism, which posits that the trajectory of technological development is predetermined within the technology itself, and instead emphasized the significant role played by social groups in technological advancement. In response to the question, “How did the current bicycle model evolve?”, they answer that not only the engineers who built the bicycle, but also various social groups surrounding it—male users, female users, sports bicycle users—each had their own preferences and interests. Through complex negotiations, they reached a consensus, leading to the selection of a stable bicycle model. This process of agreement is emphasized as a social process. That is, the direction, content, and outcomes of technology are socially constructed through the interactions of social groups.
However, this argument has not convinced all scholars of science and technology. Social constructivism has been criticized for focusing solely on the emergence of technology while remaining indifferent to its impacts. That is, it has not discussed how technology, once selected, changes individual experiences or social relations. Furthermore, they have been criticized for ignoring the social structures and power relations accompanying technological change and for being indifferent to the political issues surrounding technology.
It is difficult to view either of these two opposing claims as entirely wrong or entirely right. The question of whether technology determines society or society determines technology is akin to the chicken-or-egg dilemma. In reality, society and technology are not in a vertical causal relationship but rather a horizontal one where each influences the other. For example, Steve Jobs created the iPhone with innovative ideas, opening the world of smartphones. Users then shaped smartphone usage culture, and in this process, companies reflected these demands to develop new technologies. In other words, technology itself is not inherently good or evil, directly projected onto society. Rather, it’s a cyclical relationship: technology influences society, and the needs felt by humans within that society while using the technology are then reflected back into the technology. In this sense, technology and society are like a Möbius strip. Viewed partially, technology and society seem distinct, but viewed as a whole, they undergo a cyclical process where cause and effect endlessly repeat.
Once scientific and technological innovations gain a solid foothold in society, they become difficult to reverse. This is because technology exhibits path dependency. Unlike technological determinism, this path dependency does not imply that science and technology hold superiority over society. Rather, it signifies that widely accepted scientific and technological innovations have altered human habits themselves. At this stage, it is meaningless to dichotomize science and society, or science and culture, and debate which is superior. The two elements have already become inextricably intertwined. In this context, technology and society are in a cyclical, mutually interactive relationship. Therefore, research into the causes of technological change and research into its effects are strongly complementary. In other words, understanding the causes of technological change allows us to understand its consequences.
This fact holds significant implications for university students currently studying STEM fields. Engineering is an applied science that develops and implements industrial production technologies based on natural scientific methods and achievements. In other words, engineering is not an academic discipline detached from reality; it is the discipline that integrates science and technology into society. Therefore, engineering students need to understand the reciprocal influence between technology and society. Engineers bear the dual responsibility of developing positive and innovative technologies for our society while also reflecting the needs of its members in their work. Just as smart technologies profoundly impact our society today, future technologies yet to be developed will also significantly shape our world. These future technologies encompass diverse fields such as nanotechnology, environmental engineering, and biotechnology. Just as current nuclear technology sparks considerable controversy because it is associated with technologies like atomic bombs, future technologies are also expected to generate significant debate. In this context, we must consider how the technologies we possess and will develop will impact humanity and society, and cultivate the ability to wisely address the issues that arise.
