Technology Transfer Tactics
Cultural challenges to technology transfer
Jeffrey A McNeely
Chief Scientist, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland
PP: 66
Abstract
It often seems as if development is led by technology, and those countries and individuals with the greatest power are those with access to the most powerful technology. But technology is a part of human culture, and different cultures may treat technology in very different ways, with different cultural groups attaching different symbolic values to the same sorts of technology.
Given the rapid development of technology, supported by both public and private institutions, one major challenge to societies is how to incorporate new technologies into their cultures, so that their traditional values are maintained and enhanced while the new technologies enable more productive and sustainable relationships with the environment. It is apparent that technical actions and changes in technology are both determined by social relations that go far beyond mere action on matter, and simultaneously provide the basis for such relations.
In many cultures, different parts of technology are controlled by different sectors of the society, but other forms of technology are becoming much more wide-spread; the new forms of information technology are an important example of the 'democratization' of technology. It is apparent that cultural relations and power still decide what is acceptable to adopt and what is rejected.
That said, much evidence indicates the pragmatism of most people, and with reasonable care cultural sensitivities can be addressed when introducing new technologies. The various cultural responses to the introduction of new biotechnologies indicate how different cultural concerns are addressed in different parts of the world, and how such issues might be addressed within the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The intention is to find ways to enable the various cultures in the world to develop in ways that they consider appropriate, without losing their cultural integrity.
Keywords
technology transfer, cultural sensitivity, democratisation, biotechnology, information technology, social relations
Article Text
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Frederik Schutyser for his background research and stimulating ideas, and to Sue Rallo for her superb secretarial support and creativity in designing the PowerPoint presentation that accompanied this paper. Kent Redford and David Brackett provided useful comments on an earlier version, and Paul Mueller made significant contributions to the biotechnology discussion.
References
Amend S and Amend T (eds) (1995) National Parks Without People? The South American Experience, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Angermeier PL (2000) The natural imperative for biological conservation, Conservation Biology 14(2): 373-381.
Barnard A and Spencer J (1998) Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Routledge, London.
Bodley JH (1982) Victims of Progress (second edition) Mayfield Publishing, Palo Alto CA.
Burnham Pp (2000) Indian Country, God's Country: Native Americans and the National Parks, Island Press, Washington DC.
Carr K (1999) Cuban biotechnology treads a lonely path, Nature 398:822-823.
Center for Food Safety (2002) Compilation and Analysis of Public Opinion Polls on Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods, p.1. Available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/polls.html, updated 1 Feb 2002; accessed March 2003), The Center for Food Safety, Washington DC.
Coghlan A (1999) How safe is safe? New Scientist 16 October: 7.
Commoner B (2002) The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering, Harpers Magazine, February, 2002.
Dang H (1991) Human Conflict in Conservation. Development Alternatives, New Delhi.
Degregori TR (2001) Agriculture and Modern Technology: A Defence, Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Diamond J (1998) Guns, Germs, and Steel. Vintage, New York.
FAO (2000) Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Global Perspective Studies Unit, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Gadgil M and Guha R (1993) This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Harmon D (2002) In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us Human, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Kelley KB and Harris F (1994) Navajo Sacred Places. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Krech S (1999) The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, W.W. Norton, New York.
Kroeber AL (1948) Anthropology, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.
Laird SA (ed) (2002) Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge: Equitable Partnership in Practice, Earthscan Publications, London.
Lemonnier P (1993) Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, Routledge, London.
Martin G (2003) Unbalanced view of a dynamic world, Nature 423:115.
McNeely JA and Wachtel P (1991) Soul of the Tiger: Searching for Nature's Answers in Southeast Asia, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mumford L (1934) Techniques and Civilization, Routledge, London.
Peluso NL (1992) Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Qaim M (1999) Assessing the impact of banana biotechnology in Kenya, ISAA Briefs 10: 1-38.
Roffe P and Tesfachew T (2003) Revisiting the Technology Transfer Debate: Lessons for the New WTO Working Group, from www.ictsd.org.
Sillitoe P (2000) Let Them Eat Cake: Indigenous Knowledge, Science and the ‘Poorest of the Poor', Anthropology Today 16(6): 3-7.
Tylor EB (1871) Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom.
UCAUSA (2001) Risks of Genetic Engineering, Fact Sheet p.6. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA
Vitug MD (1993) Power From the Forest: The Politics of Logging, Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism, Manila.
Wambugu F (1999) Why Africa needs agricultural biotech, Nature 400:15-16.
Winterhalder B and Lu F (1997) A forager-resource population ecology model and implications for indigenous conservation, Conservation Biology 11(6): 1354-1364.
Zwart F de (2000) Practical knowledge and institutional design in India's affirmative action policy, Anthropology Today 16(2): 4-7.
eContent Home
