After recognizing that technologies are socially constructed, questions arise concerning how technologies should be constructed, by what processes, and granting how much influence to whom. Because partisanship, uncertainty, and disagreement are inevitable in trying to answer these questions, reconstructivist scholarship should embrace the desirability of thoughtful partisanship, should focus on strategies for coping intelligently with uncertainties, and should make central the study of social processes for coping with disagreement regarding technoscience and its utilization. That often will entail siding with have-nots, (...) meaning that reconstructivist scholars often will be opposing the behaviors of government, business, and technoscientific elites. Because reconstructivists normally will be outnumbered, we need to devote more systematic professional attention to setting our collective agenda concerning what is most worth researching. (shrink)

Political decision theory provides a framework for evaluating three approaches to military research and development: offensive weaponry intended for deterrence, the Strategic Defense Initiative and other weaponry intended fordefense, and cutbacks designed to slow the research and development treadmill. Large-scale R&D does not protect against most of the risks facing national security. Nor does an R&D-intensive approach provide the flexibility necessary to adjust military policy in light of rapidly changing international conditions. Considering all factors together, there is a strong theoretical (...) case for placing sharp constraints on military innovation, not just on the quantities of weapons deployed. (shrink)