Marx's Response to Keitel's Thesis

In Marx's article, he writes about how American attitudes toward technology have changed from believing science and technology are means to be unconfined politically and socially to believing in a more technocratic view that innovation alone is progress. While some people hold this technocratic view, it takes more than just the invention of a new technology for it to earn the label, "progress."

For my research paper, my topic is prescription drugs. Doctors give out prescription drugs and patients accept prescription drugs all too easily to improve their health.  In our highly developed world patients are constantly searching for the newest medicine and don't consider the possible roots of the problem as often, such as stress or lack of sleep. Marx would think my topic makes a valid argument. In the end of the article Marx writes, "Only by questioning the assumption that innovation necessarily represents progress can we begin to judge its worth"(77).  Science and technology mean progress when we are able to find the right purpose and answer the question, "Progress towards what?" (77). The innovations themselves are not progress; the new, usually more efficient ideas and reasons why innovations are invented are progress. My example supports Marx's statement because it shows how there is not progress toward anything except drug companies making more money.  The drug may solve one health issue while creating another causing the patient to buy more prescriptions, or the patient may not need the drug at all and therefore it is not effective.  Marx would argue that drug companies need to prove their drug actually helps patients and doctors need to be more careful when diagnosing.  Both doctors and drug companies need to shift their focus from making the most profit to finding the best way to cure patients.