Science, Technology, Society and Environment
Science, Technology, Society and Environment
This domain asks you to evaluate applications of science in real contexts - energy, mining, water, health, agriculture and waste - and to weigh benefits against risks, costs and environmental effects. Answers should show reasoning, not slogans.
Core rules and concepts
- Technology is not automatically progress: assess it against criteria such as effectiveness, safety, affordability, equity, sustainability and cultural acceptability.
- Renewable resources (solar, wind, hydro, biomass) are replenished on human timescales; non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, minerals) are finite. Both have environmental costs: hydropower floods land; solar panels require materials and disposal.
- Pollution is the release of a substance or energy at a rate or concentration that harms living things or materials. Control options include prevention at source, treatment, regulation and remediation.
- Risk assessment combines hazard and exposure. The precautionary principle applies when evidence is uncertain but harm could be serious. Ethical issues include informed consent, animal welfare, data privacy and fair access.
Worked example
A community proposes using mercury to extract gold from ore in small-scale mining. Evaluate the proposal. Benefits: income, local employment, recovery of gold from low-grade ore. Risks: mercury is a neurotoxin; it bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in fish; it contaminates rivers and groundwater; burning amalgam releases toxic vapour. Reasoning: the hazard is serious and exposure is likely, so the precautionary approach favours alternatives such as mercury-free gravity concentration, retorting with vapour capture, and enforcement of licensing. A decision should also consider who bears the risk - often downstream communities and miners without protective equipment - not only the immediate profit.
Traps that cost marks
Equating 'natural' with 'safe'; ignoring social and economic context; listing only benefits or only risks; confusing correlation with causation; treating a scientific claim as certain when evidence is limited; forgetting to name who is affected.