topic proposal

 

 

Crystina Riffel

JUS494

September 28, 2008

Topic Proposal

 

 

For my final research paper, I am proposing the topic of prescription drugs and what role they have played in society.  The paper will attempt to understand how prescription drug technologies affect our lives.  How do government institution’s policies and decisions affect the lives of Americans?  Risks and benefits such as dependency and addiction of prescription drug technologies will be analyzed.  The intentions and results of prescription drug technologies will also be explored.  The research will uncover the economical, clinical and social impact of these technologies.

 

 

I.                   History of prescription drugs in the United States

a.       how, when , why—historical background

 

II.                prescription drugs and how they are tied to institutions—how these institutions control prescription drugs (costs, distribution, regulation,etc)

a.       government policies

b.      insurance coverage

c.       lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies and how they affect government policies

 

III.             Costs and benefits

a.       dependency/addiction

b.      who can afford it

c.       economic role of prescription drug development

 

IV.       Conclusion–  how prescription drug technologies have contributed to societal inequalities

 

Potential resources:

 

A Critical Analysis of Studies of State Drug Reimbursement Policies: Research in Need of Discipline

• Stephen B. Soumerai, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Eric E. Fortess and Julia Abelson
• The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 2 (1993), pp. 217-252
• Published by: Milbank Memorial Fund

 

Cohen JC. Mrazek M. Hawkins L. Tackling corruption in the pharmaceutical systems worldwide with courage and conviction. [Review] [16 refs] [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Review] Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 81(3):445-9, 2007 Mar. UI: 17251983

 

Gilbert, J.R., R.J. Light, and F. Mosteller. 1975. Assessing Social Inno- vations: An Empirical Base for Policy. In Evaluation and Experi- ment: Some Critical Issues in Assessing Social Programs, eds. C.H. Bennett and A.A. Lumsdaine, 39-193. New York: Academic Press

 

Social Determinants and Their Unequal Distribution: Clarifying Policy Understandings

Hilary Graham and Lancaster University . The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 1 (2004), pp. 101-124 Published by: Milbank Memorial Fund

 

Health Care Financing Administration. 1987. Analysis of State Medicaid Program Characteristics 1986. Baltimore: HCFA, Office of the Actuary.

—. 1991. Reports: 1988-1991. In Pharmaceutical Benefits under State Medical Assistance Programs. Reston, Va.: National Pharma- ceutical Council.

 

Improving Drug Prescribing in Primary Care: A Critical Analysis of the Experimental Literature
Stephen B. Soumerai, Thomas J. McLaughlin and Jerry Avorn
The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2 (1989), pp. 268-317
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3350142

Week 4 reflection

This week’s focus was on Thomas Hughes “Technological Momentum”.  Hughes’s systems-orientated explanation of the past is deterministic “because it places technology at the center of the historical process and links everything else to it” (Hughes 101).  He views technological momentum as an alternative to technological determinism.  He states that “younger developing systems tend to be more open to sociocultural influences while older, more mature systems prove to be more independent of outside influences and therefore more deterministic in nature” (Hughes 101).

Hughes states his definitions of technological determinism, social construction and technological momentum.  He defines technological determinism as the belief that technical forces determine social and cultural changes.  Social construction presumes that social and cultural forces determine technical change.  Technological momentum infers that social development shapes and is shaped by technology (Hughes 102).

“A technological system can be both a cause and an effect; it can shape or be shaped by society.  As they grow larger and more complex, systems tend to be more shaping of society and less shaped by it.  Therefore, the momentum of technological systems is a concept that can be located somewhere between the poles of technical determinism and social constructivism” (Hughes 112).  

~Crystina Riffel

week 3 reflection

JUS 494 Week 3 Reflection

Crystina Riffel

 

This week’s readings and lectures focused on the beginnings of the designs for the bicycle.  The lecture included a power point of the different technology topics such as Marxist theory, magic bullet theory, philosophy of determinism, social constructivism, surveillance control, technology as capitalist control, technology framing and degree of inclusion. 

To touch on a few of these areas, I will describe a few.  The magic bullet theory was described as planned, rational, and determinist.  The war between the Sacrens and Germans showed the example of the stirrup as a technology giving an advantage to riders.  Marxist theory in technology involves control, simplification and automation of tasks (Ford as an example).  Each relevant social group has their own technological frame.  Degree of inclusion builds when relevant social groups interact around an artifact.  A social determinist view implies that technology is a reflection of society.  Jeremy Bentham’s Panoptical prison design is an example of invisible control.  It gives the authorities total control in that the prisoners never know when they are being watched.  In this case, technology can be seen as used for surveillance and control.  Concerns in this area are cultural, moral and political, not just technological. 

The reading about the “QWERTY” keyboard asked why we still are using this ineffective model of a keyboard when there are better options available.  The author, Jared Diamond, states that the continued use of the QWERTY keyboard is a result of a commitment from early dominance.  Diamond states that the only real obstacle from switching to another type of keyboard is the familiar fear of abandoning a long held commitment.

JUS494 Week 2 Reflection

JUS494 WEEK 2 REFLECTION

 

 

            This week’s readings, discussions and lectures focused on artifacts that have a political meaning/agenda.  From Robert Moses’ low bridges to the tomato picker machine in California, the technologies and artifacts have been said to have a political agenda.

            Robert Moses’ low bridges in Long Island are said to be an example of racism.  The claim suggests that Robert Moses designed the bridges to be so low that city buses or city transportation could not fit on the bridge.  The bridges and highways he built favored the use of automobile over the development of mass transit (Winner 23). In class we did an activity that separated the class into two groups.  One group was acting as the developers and supporters of the bridge and the other as the opposing side with claims that the bridges prevented black people from crossing the bridge.  Each side had interesting claims.  I was surprised how easily it was for the supporters/developers to defend their stance and deny racism.

            In the article “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”  by Langdon Winner, he says that “what matters is not the technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded”(20).  He states that “it is obvious that technologies can be used in ways that enhance the power, authority and privilege of some over others” (25).  The reading examines the claims that technologies are either democratic or authoritarian.  Authoritarian technologies are “system-centered, immensely powerful, but inherently unstable” (Winner 19).  Democratic technologies are “man-centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable” (Winner 19).  Overall, “the issue has to do with ways in which choices about technology have important consequences for the form and quality of human associations” (Winner 33).

            The other article, “The New Politics of Technology”, by Eric Cohen, touched three caveats.  The first being that “the problem of technology is not exactly new”, the second, “the problem of technology cannot be separated from the character of human life as a whole” and the third, “the problem of technology is not the only problem worth thinking about, and better technology is not the only remedy worth seeking for the ills of human life” (Cohen 2003).

 

~Crystina Riffel

JUS494 Week one

 Crystina Riffel

August 31, 2008

JUS494

week one

 

 

This week’s discussion covered topics of income inequality. It has been argued that skilled and unskilled labor, international competition (globalization), location, and the increased use of technology are contributing factors to income equality.  The drop in unions is also another contributing factor.

 Since the 1970s, the U.S. experienced large inequality rates.  It has the most unequal income and wage distributions of any high-income nation.  Some scholars say technology is a huge factor in the growing gap between the rich and poor.  Technological change favors more skilled workers, replaces tasks by the unskilled and increases the demand for skills (Acemoglu, 2003). 

Another major economic development of the past 30 years is the increased globalization of production, and greater trade between the United States and less developed nations.  In Daron Acemoglu’s article, Technology and Inequality, it is suggested that globalization and increased trade might be responsible for the rise in U.S. inequality.  Trade and globalization induce further skill-biased technological change (Acemoglu, 2003). 

A factor besides technological change is the change in social norms pertaining to inequality and fairness.  In recent years, it has become much more acceptable for CEOs to be paid much higher than production workers.  Increases in inequality might affect labor market institutions and political preferences about redistribution.  It may also make it harder for unions to survive.  Labor market institutions may have a large role in reducing inequality.  They will do so by encouraging technical change to be less skill-biased.