A comprehensive report on Colby College's 'STS: The Human Element' program, situating the event within the broader field of Science and Technology Studies and exploring policy, ethical and societal implications with expert commentary and data.
A comprehensive report on Colby College's 'STS: The Human Element' program, situating the event within the broader field of Science and Technology Studies and exploring policy, ethical and societal implications with expert commentary and data.
Colby College’s recent program, titled "STS: The Human Element," framed science and technology as social projects that reflect values, institutions and power relations as much as technical choices, according to reporting by Colby News. The program brought together scholars, faculty and students to examine how scientific knowledge and technological systems shape — and are shaped by — political, cultural and economic forces.
Scholars in the interdisciplinary field known as Science and Technology Studies (STS) have long advanced this view: technologies do not exist outside societies but are embedded within them. The Colby initiative is one of a growing number of campus- and community-level efforts that treat STS as both a method of inquiry and a set of practical guides for policy and design.
Technologies that once were the preserve of laboratories and corporations now touch most aspects of daily life. From algorithmic decision-making in hiring and criminal justice to gene-editing tools in medicine and large-scale climate models that inform policy, technical systems are increasingly consequential. That reach, STS scholars say, makes it essential to analyze the social contexts in which these systems are developed and deployed.
"Science and technology are not separate from society; they are embedded in it," said Sheila Jasanoff, a leading STS scholar, in her work and public commentary exploring the co-production of scientific knowledge and social order. Her writings and those of other scholars in the field emphasize that scientific claims and technological artifacts reflect social choices, institutional incentives and legal frameworks. See Professor Jasanoff's profile and publications at Harvard Kennedy School STS.
Professor Ruha Benjamin, who studies the relationships between race, justice and technology, has similarly cautioned that technological systems can reproduce and amplify pre-existing inequalities unless they are intentionally designed to do otherwise. Her research and public-facing work explore how design and policy decisions produce disparate outcomes; more on her research is available at Princeton AAS and in her book Race After Technology.
According to Colby News coverage, the "STS: The Human Element" program sought to introduce students and the public to STS perspectives and demonstrate how social analysis can deepen understanding of technological controversies and policy choices. The program is consistent with a wider trend in higher education that integrates humanistic and social-science perspectives with technical and scientific curricula, aiming to produce graduates who can navigate technical complexity and social responsibility.
STS is not a single methodology but a constellation of approaches. Typical emphases include:
Professional societies and programs — such as the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) — offer forums for scholars across disciplines; see 4S.
STS research and the topics discussed at Colby reflect a set of recurring public controversies where technical and social questions are intertwined. Three areas commonly surface in STS conversations:
Automated systems in areas such as hiring, lending and criminal justice illustrate how seemingly technical tools can have deep social effects. A notable example is ProPublica’s 2016 analysis of the COMPAS risk-assessment tool, which found differences in false-positive and false-negative rates across racial groups; the piece raised sustained public debate about fairness, transparency and oversight in algorithmic systems. See ProPublica's reporting at ProPublica.
STS scholars emphasize that algorithmic bias often results from choices about data collection, label definitions, model objectives and deployment contexts. Addressing those issues requires not only technical fixes but institutional and legal reforms that recalibrate incentives and set standards for accountability.
Climate models are essential tools for forecasting and policymaking, but they are also products of scientific assumptions, computational limits and choices about scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces periodic assessment reports that synthesize scientific knowledge for policymakers; the latest reports provide more precise estimates while also communicating uncertainties. See the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report at IPCC AR6.
STS approaches to climate science explore how models are constructed, how uncertainty is communicated, and how policy debates shape — and are shaped by — scientific framing. Scholars often point to the necessity of cross-disciplinary collaboration among climate scientists, social scientists, policymakers and affected communities to ensure that models serve diverse decision needs.
Advances in biotechnology — notably CRISPR-based gene editing — have reignited debates about regulation, ethical boundaries and the social implications of altering biological systems. High-profile cases, such as the 2018 revelation of genetically edited babies, underscored gaps in oversight and international consensus. Coverage and scientific responses are archived at outlets such as Nature.
STS scholars study how laboratory practices, publication norms and institutional incentives influence which research directions proliferate. They also track how governance structures respond to novel capabilities — and where they fail to anticipate social consequences.
Quantitative measures illustrate why STS perspectives are increasingly salient. The U.S. National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators documents trends in the science and engineering workforce, investments in research and the global distribution of scientific activity. Those indicators show sustained growth in science and engineering employment and research investment, along with widening international competition. See the NSF’s overview at NSF NCSES and the latest indicators at NSB 2021-2.
Other data points reinforce the urgency of socially informed technology governance:
STS perspectives aim to ensure that these trajectories are not treated as merely technical matters but as societal choices with distributive consequences.
"Understanding the social contexts in which technologies are developed is essential to crafting governance mechanisms that actually protect people," said Ruha Benjamin, whose research examines the intersection of race and technology. Her work argues for design and policy choices that actively counteract inequality; more of her commentary and research is available through her academic profile and publications at Princeton AAS.
"When scientists and engineers make choices about metrics, data and objectives, they are also making social choices," said Sheila Jasanoff in writings that explore how knowledge production and social order co-produce one another. Her scholarship is a touchstone for STS researchers and is available at Harvard Kennedy School.
Organizers of campus STS initiatives emphasize pedagogy as well as public engagement. Programs like Colby’s typically include lectures, panel discussions and hands-on workshops that connect theory to concrete cases. The pedagogical goal is to cultivate critical reflection among students who will become engineers, scientists, policymakers and citizens.
As STS perspectives gain traction beyond academia, they are beginning to influence policy debates and institutional practices. Examples of responses include:
However, gaps remain. Regulatory frameworks often lag behind technological change, and incentives for private-sector actors may privilege short-term efficiency or proprietary secrecy over transparency and public accountability. STS scholars argue that remedies require both technical design changes and structural reforms in governance, funding and education.
STS itself is not immune to debate. Some critics argue that the field can be too skeptical of expertise, potentially undermining public trust in science. Others caution that emphasizing social construction without attention to material constraints can lead to moral relativism. STS scholars generally respond that the aim is neither to undermine expertise nor to deny material realities, but to situate expertise within social contexts so that governance is more democratic and effective.
There are also pragmatic challenges in translating STS insights into policy, including:
Programs like Colby’s aim to equip students with analytic tools and civic sensibilities. Typical educational strategies include:
Advocates argue that this combination produces graduates better prepared for leadership roles in technical fields and for public-service careers where social consequences matter as much as technical performance.
The "STS: The Human Element" program at Colby College exemplifies a broader movement to treat science and technology as deeply social endeavors. As advances in AI, biotechnology and climate science reshape societies, STS perspectives provide tools for understanding how technical choices interact with values, institutions and power structures. Translating those insights into policy and practice remains an active challenge that will require ongoing engagement across disciplines, institutions and public stakeholders.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and does not represent investment or legal advice.
Selected references and resources:
Like
Dislike
Love
Angry
Sad
Funny
Wow
California Bar Introduces Privacy Law Specialization to Meet Digital Era Demands
June 22, 2025
Collagen Supplements Boom: Do They Really Improve Skin and Hair Health?
March 15, 2025
Twitter Rolls Out New Feature Allowing Users to Tip Influencers Directly
April 08, 2025
Comments 0