Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
http://bst.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association for Science, Technology & Society
Additional services and information for Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://bst.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Jerry Ravetz
20
obvious in Britain than elsewhere; but it is not at all am sure that every one of such
Now, I
unique to this country. criticisms be countered, as being inaccurate,
can
misguided, or unfair. But we seem now to lack a
This is the symptom which I shall use to coherent statement that they are all beside the
introduce my study of science in its social setting: point:science should not need to justify the details
the old social contract of science seems to be of its consequences or of its conduct to basically
weakened, indeed discredited; and there is as yet unsympathetic sectarian critics. Under the old
nothing to take its place. social contract, such a blanket defence as this was
plausible and effective; and indeed it even could
I will not here offer a clean and tidy be all the more effective for being implicit. Now
solution to this problem; for I do not know of any. it cannot be stated publicly. What has happened?
Rather, I will offer some examples and ideas, as an
invitation to a discussion; only that, and no more. The basic change from the old
of status
It may be that such a style, rather than theories and science, with the old social contract, be can
blueprints, might even be appropriate for an described as &dquo;industrialization&dquo;. This has several
eventual &dquo;New Social Contract for Science&dquo;. aspects. Most obvious is the union of science with
technology, and the great increase in the aggregate
size of the scientific enterprise. With these
2. Why Science Has No Champion. developments, science has become more like
industry, and has necessarily and inevitably lost
There is no need for me to run through the some of its independence and innocence. But the
doleful tale of attacks on scientific research, both process of industrialization also penetrates into
within and outside the Universities, that are the the life of science itself. Formerly scientists were
hallmark of the present UK government. Nor need independent craftsmen, whose equipment costs
I remind you of the silence of the other major were of an order of magnitude commensurate with
parties on this issue. In the next Government, their means, or at least with those of a patron.
there might well be more money for science and Their standing as members of a community then
education, but at a political price, in reorganisation depended on what they did with that equipment
or re-direction to someone else’s priorities. The seen by the quality of their accomplished work.
old British social contract, so well epitomized in Now, the assessment by &dquo;output&dquo; has been
the hallowed principle of the old Medical seriously modified, for research cannot begin until
Research Council to &dquo;Back Chaps&dquo;**, is no more. some funding agency has decided to invest in it.
Scientific research is now a capitalintensive
Elsewhere the hostility and contempt are enterprise, rather than a craftsmen’s community,
not soobvious, but the end of an era is in this important respect.
unmistakeable. In America, biology has for some
years been increasingly under the sway of the Once that science, or even an individual
commercial interests that are developing scientist, needs to justify a claim on someone
else’s resources, then that someone else’s values
In these English-speaking countries, the inevitably enter the endeavour.
struggle to maintain the integrity and health of the
scientific enterprise is especially sharp, at times With industrialization has thus come a-
nearly desperate. It is not made any easier by decisive shift in the balance between knowledge
those, generally from within the intellectual, and power in the goals of scientific effort.
educated sector of society, who attack science for Formerly, &dquo;science&dquo; was devoted to the pursuit of
its alleged lapses from morality or integrity. Not knowledge; it was thereby &dquo;pure&dquo; in several
merely are the &dquo;experts&dquo; employed by State senses. The application of that knowledge to
agencies and private corporations routinely held power was the task of others; science derived
up to derision and contempt. Worse, the conduct credit for making the means available, and
of research, even within universities, is escaped blame when something went wrong. That
condemned on ethical grounds, as lacking in due happy state of affairs is with us no longer. Science,
sensitivity to the interests of its sentient subjects, as a socially organised activity, is no longer
human or otherwise. insulated from the consequences of its
received verities of science. These are people The other approach is that of tough
who, in general, do not support any particular realism. There was a famous advertisement in the
external criticism of science; they are content 1960’s, by one of the leading aerospace
merely to corrode its heart, from within. contractors for the Vietnam war. This displayed
the proud motto, &dquo;North American Rockwell,
In such a context, the writings of eminent where science gets down to business&dquo; - an
scientists about the pleasures of research, or the exquisitely designed ambiguity, so expressive of
promise of science for human welfare, can seem the current social contract of science.
like the ramblings of old men about their bygone
happy youth. Now, to study science as a scholar So we could say that the seduction of
is to criticise, indeed to attack and deny, its past industrialized science by its external clients, in
pretentions to merit. Should such developments business and the State is so historically inevitable;
continue, and there is no sign of their abating, it why not lie back and enjoy it? Already, the &dquo;pure&dquo;
will become increasingly difficult to find anyone research sector has been renamed &dquo;basic&dquo;, and
who can make an effective case for science, to an anyway occupies a shrinking portion of the total
increasingly disenchanted public. As science effort. How much funding of research is now
needs a champion ever more, he will be ever less devoted to sheer scientific curiosity? And
likely to appear. certainly, the rate of innovation in key sectors of
technology and medicine is evidence that
enthusiasm and creativity still flourish.
3. What Sort of New Image?
In this proposed social contract, science,
I am arguing that the malaise of science, its becomes the servant of society. Its work can be
inability to dismiss its enemies and detractors, planned, at least in outline; by negotiation there
reflects the obsolescence of the old social contract could be derived the proportions of total societal
of science. And with this comes the irrelevance of support to be spent on, say, civil technology,
the old dominant image of science, as the provider, defence, medicine, environment, &dquo;basic&dquo;, and
directly, of the True and, indirectly, of the Good. odds-and-ends. As such a situation stabilised, new
The improvement of the state of science, in its self- foci of power and prestige would emerge. The old
confidence, morale, and integrity, will require a &dquo;pure science&dquo; image, corresponding to the old
creative response to its new circumstances. What social contract, could be allowed to wither away.
options are available? Indeed, in the heavily bureaucratized societies,
with a scientific tradition deriving from the
The easiest course to follow is to try more Academie des Sciences of Paris rather than from
of the old mixture, perhaps modernized by some the Royal Society of London, such a social
market research into what the public particularly contract has been a strong, sometimes even
wants. Of course there will be an admission that dominant pattern. So what would be wrong with
science does not have all the answers; and that it here?
values necessarily enter into policy decisions on
technological and industrial questions. But the One thing wrong is that we do not have the
message will be, that &dquo;science&dquo;, meaning the political and administrative traditions in which
activity of the leaders of the research community, such a totally &dquo;incorporated&dquo;’’’science could
is still at the centre of things. Trust them to flourish. Also, we believe that universities should
continue managing, pressure the government to be places for &dquo;teaching in the atmosphere of
provide them again with the prestige and research&dquo;; on that other system, the two functions
perquisites they so sadly miss, and all will be well. are nearly completely separate.
To accomplish the enlightenment of the public to
appreciate so obvious a message, it only needs More to the point, this absorption of
more and better-trained schoolteachers, and more science would not resolve any of the problems I
and better-disposed journalists (and fewer of those have mentioned, that are leading to its rejection by
nasty TV investigators). With a complacency
befitting just such a cause, this case is advanced by *
I am indebted to Hilary Rose for this concept, which is
our surviving scientific elite. complementary to my &dquo;industrialisation&dquo;.
the public. Suppose schoolchildren get a constant important respects science retains traces of the
diet of criticism of science where it is blamed
-
their vicarious experience. Then movements of final Honours examinations that include questions
reform or even of revolution would make their like &dquo;critically evaluate&dquo; a theory; but they are
social analyses in the name of &dquo;science&dquo;, and only a minority. In our science teaching, we have
derive assurance thereby. a formal curriculum that generally purveys hard
incontestable facts; and a hidden curriculum that
Democracy is also inherent in the moulds students’ thinking into the ruling
processes of research science. Research results assumptions on what sorts of problems, solutions
are (in principle) evaluated without any regard for and even ways of analyzing problems are &dquo;truly
the personal characteristics of social location of scientific&dquo;. This seems to be as absolutist as any
the author. Entry into science, and rewards for doctrines imposed by ecclesiastical or political
excellence, are based on merit, not on personal authorities in the past.
connections. Power in the scientific community is
diffused among members (through peer-review of Well, you may say, there are some
proposals and refereeing for journals); and problems in realising the critical spirit in science-
positions of professional leadership are awarded teaching. But this teaching, as well as research
for excellence and wisdom, rather than for practice, is uniform and open to all; how could one
political connections. All this is more strongly possibly conceive it as hierarchical? Of course,
characteristic of pre-industrialized science; and it the form content of natural science is abstracted
has provided inspiration for scientists as widely from all social considerations. But the practice of
different in their political outlook as Michael science as a social institution cannot be so
Polanyi and J. Desmond Bemal. abstracted. There are enough well-documented
accounts of the history of sexism and of racism in
In view of all this, it may well seem research communities, that I need not labour the
paradoxical, as well as unsettling, if I say that in point here. Such unfair practices are indeed
some important respects modem science bears regrettable, but is this &dquo;hierarchy&dquo;? No; these
strong traces of the times of its origins, when examples were introduced merely to establish the
hierarchy in society and absolutism in religion and point that even &dquo;pure&dquo; science does not necessarily
knowledge were still dominant. have a &dquo;pure&dquo; social practice.
Absolutism and hierarchy - these may Hierarchy comes in more subtly, in the
seem very inappropriate as descriptions of dominant assumptions of what is &dquo;real&dquo; science, in
science. But the points are not new with me. As what institutions and by what people it is done, and
to absolutism, we find in Kuhn’s classic work also how it relates to the &dquo;less real&dquo;. This point
Structure of Scientific Revolutions a vivid does not require political radicals for its
description of an absolutist regime in scientific expression; for many years we have heard
knowledge. The &dquo;paradigm&dquo; is the unquestioned, complaints that &dquo;applied science&dquo; and
indeed unquestionable, framework of current &dquo;engineering&dquo; enjoy significantly less prestige
research. To secure its permanence, students are than &dquo;pure science&dquo; in our country. The effects of
indoctrinated, history is distorted, and difficulties such differences in status operate in many ways;
in research practice are, as he says, &dquo;suppressed or the less favoured activities tend to accept their
evaded&dquo;. The world of open criticism and free inferiority and try to ape their betters. In America,
debate, so prized by Popper in his account of &dquo;physics-envy&dquo; is a well-known neurotic disorder
science, is emphatically conspicuous by its of the behavioural sciences.
absence in Kuhn’s picture of &dquo;normal science&dquo;.
Small wonder that Popper described it as a &dquo;danger The perspective here, particularly as seen
to science, and to our civilization&dquo;, though tending from the educationalist’s viewpoint, is of a
reluctantly to agree with it as a description of pyramid of prestige, with the Royal Society and its
science education. special style at the top, and &dquo;technology&dquo;
somewhere near but not at it. Teaching is oriented
Kuhn’s account of the research process towards getting the pupils as high up that pyramid
has been widely criticized; but no one, to my as their effort and talent will take them. The skills
knowledge, has argued that science education is of comprehending and controlling one’s own
Popperian, critical and democratic, rather than personal environment are generally (though with
Kuhnian, dogmatic and absolutist. There are some an increasing number of important exceptions)
exclusive power to decide what is real and the present difficulties of science, and of the way
legitimate in the healing arts, and what is not. In to their resolution.
all this, its professed basis is science: scientific
knowledge as the foundation, and scientific So I shall summarise an article in the
method as the warrant for its claims. journal Everyone’s Back Yard, published by the
Citizens’ Clearinghous for Hazardous Waste Inc.,
Hence when a steadily increasing number the current issue, Winter 1986.
of people defy the bans and proscriptions on
&dquo;alternative&dquo; medicine, they are implicitly It’s called &dquo;Lessons We’ve Learned&dquo;; and
rejecting the exclusive claims of mainstream there are four. The first is that &dquo;science and
medicine in some respect or other: either it is not technical information alone will not solve
truly scientific, or its idea of science is itself problems&dquo;, mainly because government agencies
defective. To some extent the latter must be the would rather not know about problems lest they be
case, especially when the patient invests his required to find the money to do something about
practical trust and tentative belief in a treatment them. Then that &dquo;There are only a few answers to
whose theoretical basis is utterly at variance with the many scientific questions raised by dump
science as we know it, such as acupuncture of sites&dquo;, because science out in the raw, confronting
homeopathy. disturbed and degraded natural systems, is a
totally different thing from science in the teaching
Alternative medicine is a useful example or research lab. Third that &dquo;often scientists don’t
for us in forming a perspective on the evolution of admit that they don’t know&dquo;, lest they lose
science, for it forces us to think again about what credibility; instead they argue for the
we mean by &dquo;science&dquo;, in relation to the lives of &dquo;acceptability&dquo; of supposedly &dquo;small&dquo; risks.
people and also to its own essential character. For Finally it was a particularly hard lesson for the
brevity I want to consider another example at the author to learn that &dquo;scientists are not objective&dquo;,
opposite extreme: mixed political-scientific but have their biases like anyone else. Perhaps in
campaigning by local groups on environmental the old-fashioned lab, where scientists enjoy
issues. In that case, the character of science is not control over their experiments and are insulated
challenged; but its public manifestation as official from the economic and political consequences of
expertise is held up to sharp, critical scrutiny. their work, &dquo;objectivity&dquo; is possible. But out in the
world of policy, where scientists suffer great
Such groups, sometimes called NIMBY uncertainties in their research results and
(’Not My Back Yard’) are found worldwide; as
in experience direct pressures from their employers,
yet they have no formal unifying organization or they require exceptional strength to withstand the
ideology. But such groups, allied to special- interests that are concerned with power rather than
interest pressure groups, have already caused either truth or welfare.
important changes in the thinking of industry and
government about &dquo;the environment&dquo; and its We should notice that this account, unlike
proper care. In this country the movement started some from the extreme &dquo;green&dquo; fringe, appreciates
with the anti-motorway action groups of the 1960s that scientists may mean well and do their best.
and 1970s; and it is now most visible with those But the new problems of science in the
opposing the storage of dangerous wastes in their environment, or policyrelated research, strip
neighbourhood. Up to now, the leadership has scientists and science of those protections which
come from America, where traditions of strong had previously enabled the endeavour to seem
local politics, of citizens’ initiatives, and of a &dquo;pure&dquo; in so many ways. Now the innocence is
helpful judicial system, have combined to enable lost, as that of a vanished childhood; the question
the growth of movements of considerable strength is whether, or rather how, science can attain a
and sophistication. mature understanding of itself in its complex and
contradictory social setting. It seems to me that to
Through their struggles they have come to approach the members of the Citizens’
their own awareness of what science is, in the Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, or even the
context of its employment in the control of clients of alternative medicine, with the standard
technology. The picture is not flattering, but it is proposals for more and better school teachers and
important for us to comprehend it, as a symptom of journalists would be somehow missing the point.
Perhaps the most important lesson of the aspects of more &dquo;academic&dquo; subjects. So here I am
preceding examples was one nearly implicit arguing that science as taught in institutions, and
aspect of them both. This is, that &dquo;science&dquo; in each science as learned and experienced by people, are
case means something quite different from the not so entirely disparate as the contents of our
activity centred on original research, which we in University honours courses would lead us to
the universities generally take for granted as believe.
defining real science. Alternative medicine is,
nearly by definition, not science; some would Third, in all this endeavor
we witness
even call it anti-science. Similarly, debates creativity, and in
personal growth, spite of the
between hired or partisan experts on the hazards of absence of &dquo;discovery&dquo; as defined in
a rubbish dump, may seem best kept quite distinct establishment science. It is all too easy for
from what goes on in the university lab. Yet such scientific discovery itself to become routine, and
examples are of peoples’ direct, personal devoid of, or even inimical to, creativity; such is a
experience of science; other experiences might be very common situation in &dquo;industrialized&dquo;
on their job, when &dquo;science&dquo; can either make their scientific research contexts. In this &dquo;practical&dquo;
work better, or perhaps worse, or even non- science, just as in orthodox science studied as
existent ; or in their homes, where &dquo;science&dquo; hobby or avocation, lies a resource of creativity
appears as nutrition, gardening, Do-It-Yourself, and enjoyment which could provide that elan,
hobbies, first-aid, child-rearing, marriage- enthusiasm, and commitment without which
guidance and so on. Of course hardly any of this science of any sort cannot long survive.
is &dquo;science&dquo; as understood in the context of British
University Honours Degree courses. The Finally, all of this &dquo;practical science&dquo; has a
Americans are not so fastidious. So we in the very important function, only imperfectly realised
universities have in some ways been living in an in institutionalized education, that of enabling
Ivory Tower, not being reminded of the difference people to control their own personal environments
between our rather precious, esoteric conception and hence their own lives. In this sense it is
of science, and that of the broad public on whose profoundly democratic.
good-will our survival ultimately depends.
So, this large body of literature and
Perhaps in this discovery, of the varieties practical skills, generally ignored in polite
of scientific experience, we can find some clues to discussions of &dquo;science&dquo;, offers some important
the eventual re-casting of the social contract of lessons for us. It is not hierarchical, nor absolute,
science. The first is that such &dquo;practical science&dquo; and it is genuinely &dquo;enabling&dquo;, to use that term in
(as distinct from the &dquo;popular science&dquo; purveyed its new sense. Perhaps it is all the more interesting
from on high) is neither hierarchical nor absolute. in that it was not designed that way, but just
It is mainly a handbook literature, commercially happened.
successful where it is felt to be useful, and
embodying much disagreement between sources. These three sorts of science, the
This &dquo;science&dquo; generally lacks institutions for &dquo;alternative&dquo;, &dquo;political&dquo; and &dquo;practical&dquo;, are only
direction, quality-control and adjudication of samples of a wider class. In one obvious sense
debates. Yet it survives and flourishes, as the they are not ’science’. But why not? They all
background to the more self-conscious, involve investigations of Nature, for human
intellectually demanding activities like alternative understanding and control; and that is as good a
medicine or environmental campaigning. definition as any. Of course, they are not
disciplined Research, and so they do not yield the
Second, there is a continuity of content, if sort of knowledge as a social possession, that we
not of formal instruction, between such materials ordinarily consider to be Science. I would only say
and the school syllabuses of &dquo;practical science&dquo; this: perhaps our definitions are in need of
for the less-able pupils, that is those who are revision, so that we could overcome the barriers,
incapable of the real thing. Similarly, there is a social, cultural and intellectual, between our
rich literature on more theorectical topics, ranging mainstream science, with its tendencies to
from medical ethics to environmental protection, hierarchy and absolutism and these other sorts of
that could enrich and enliven instruction in those endeavour.
Let me now recaptulate briefly. Over the For this attitude is not a perennial,
previous centuries, science enjoyed a &dquo;social unchanging Oriental wisdom. Only a few decades
contract&dquo; whereby it obtained societal support and ago the leaders of China were sure that they had a
protection. Until recently, its patrons were largely science of society which provided all the correct
within the elite section of society, though the answers to their problems; and then they lurched
image of science always and necessarily had a from crises to catastrophes. Their version of
broader appeal. In these modem times, with its Marxism was, like so many others of its time, both
industrialization, science has been transformed absolute and hierarchical, just like the image of
both as a social activity and in its social contract. natural science on which it was modelled. Now,
This new state is not stable, nor is it one in which through all their very real, passionate debates on
science can easily flourish. The next change in the extremely difficult problems, they know that free
social contract may involve only some shuffling discussion and diversified experimentation are
among the various State and corporate patrons and their only security against another disaster.
paymasters, accompanied by some putting out of