The secularization of science and a new deal for science policy

Futures

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 483-503

  Fuller, Steve ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041724271     PISSN: 00163287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0016-3287(97)00024-4     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. For readers not familiar with these debates and literatures, it is worth observing that the branches of the 'natural sciences' most susceptible to sociological scrutiny are the ones that have followed the 'Big Science' style of laboratory work most closely associated with high-energy physics. These fields are typically arranged on an 'industrial' model that originated in 19th century chemistry but which, in the 20th century, have required massive public investment to achieve their current scale. Molecular biology is probably the latest field to follow this pattern, especially in connection with the Human Genome Project. However, the sociological critique also extends to those fields and individuals who believe that such a model represents an ideal toward which all forms of inquiry should strive. It is this ideological sense that will figure most prominently in this paper.
2. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
3. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
4. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
5. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
6. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
7. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
8. The most famous monographs in the recent history and sociology of science have been Latour B. and Woolgar, S., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986 [1979]; and Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S., Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985. The house organ for work of this kind is the quarterly, Social Studies of Science (Sage, London, 1971-). For the historical and philosophical background of the recent sociology of science, especially in relation to its conflicts with science, see Fuller, S., On the motives of the new sociology of science. History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 117-124. This article was one of the keynote addresses at the first conference expressly designed to open dialogue between scientists active in the British 'public understanding of science' movement and their sociological critics. 'Science's Social Standing' occurred on 2-4 December 1994 at Durham University under the auspices of the Times Higher Education Supplement. have written extended reviews of the major scientific works written against recent sociology of science: Fuller, S., Can science studies be spoken in a civil tongue? (a review essay of Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory and Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science), Social Studies of Science, 1994, 24, 143-168; A tale of two cultures and other higher superstitions (a review essay of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition), History of the Human Sciences, 1995, 8, 115-125. The authors of these books responded in subsequent issues of the respective journals.
9. Fuller, S., Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1988; Fuller, S., Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York 1993 [1989]; Fuller, S., Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1993. See also Fuller, S., Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London, 1987.
10. Fuller, S., Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1988; Fuller, S., Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York 1993 [1989]; Fuller, S., Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1993. See also Fuller, S., Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London, 1987.
11. Fuller, S., Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1988; Fuller, S., Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York 1993 [1989]; Fuller, S., Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1993. See also Fuller, S., Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London, 1987.
12. Fuller, S., Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1988; Fuller, S., Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York 1993 [1989]; Fuller, S., Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1993. See also Fuller, S., Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London, 1987.
13. Among Western philosophers of science, Sandra Harding has been most receptive to these trends (Harding, S., Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1991; Harding, S. (ed.), The Racial Economy of Science. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994).
14. Among Western philosophers of science, Sandra Harding has been most receptive to these trends (Harding, S., Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1991; Harding, S. (ed.), The Racial Economy of Science. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994).
15. Inkster, I., Science and Technology in History: An Approach to Industrial Development. Macmillan, London, 1991, pp. 80-86.
16. Amidst the recent renaissance of historical interest in Whewell, the best works include Fisch, M., William Whewell, Philosopher of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991; Yeo, R., Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. A smorgasbord of perspectives is provided in Fisch, M. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
17. Amidst the recent renaissance of historical interest in Whewell, the best works include Fisch, M., William Whewell, Philosopher of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991; Yeo, R., Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. A smorgasbord of perspectives is provided in Fisch, M. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
18. Amidst the recent renaissance of historical interest in Whewell, the best works include Fisch, M., William Whewell, Philosopher of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991; Yeo, R., Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. A smorgasbord of perspectives is provided in Fisch, M. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.
19. A good summary of these developments seen in terms of the emerging role of education as a principle of social stratification is Simon, B., Systematization and segmentation in education: the case of England. In The Rise of the Modern Educational System: Structural Change and Social Reproduction, 1870-1920, eds. D. Mueller, F. Ringer, and B. Simon. Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 88-110.
20. An excellent history of this distinction is Laudan, L., Science and Hypothesis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1982.
21. The idea that 'science' and 'religion' have been in perennial institutional conflict is a product of the late 19th century historical imagination. Only once science had begun to assume religion's role as the seat of authoritative knowledge in Western society did the previous history start to be written in terms of science's deliberate attempt to wrench that role away from religion. A key text was Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1895). As points of contrast, consider that even heretics such as Galileo never renounced their faith, but asserted that the Church fathers would uphold the heretics over the current orthodoxy. For its part, the Enlightenment typically supported science, not as an institutional alternative to religion, but as an exemplar of 'reason' that can demystify the more superstitious aspects of religion (see Hedley Brooke, J., Science and Religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
22. The idea that 'science' and 'religion' have been in perennial institutional conflict is a product of the late 19th century historical imagination. Only once science had begun to assume religion's role as the seat of authoritative knowledge in Western society did the previous history start to be written in terms of science's deliberate attempt to wrench that role away from religion. A key text was Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1895). As points of contrast, consider that even heretics such as Galileo never renounced their faith, but asserted that the Church fathers would uphold the heretics over the current orthodoxy. For its part, the Enlightenment typically supported science, not as an institutional alternative to religion, but as an exemplar of 'reason' that can demystify the more superstitious aspects of religion (see Hedley Brooke, J., Science and Religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
23. See Chapin Massey, M., Christ Unmasked: The Meaning of 'The Life of Jesus' German Politics. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1983.
24. Inkster, op cit reference 5, p. 97. See also Johnson, J., The Kaiser's Chemists. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1990, for the machinations behind the creation of the KWG.
25. Inkster, op cit reference 5, p. 97. See also Johnson, J., The Kaiser's Chemists. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1990, for the machinations behind the creation of the KWG.
26. The best source for the Popper-Kuhn debate is Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.
27. See especially Feyerabend, P., Science in a Free Society. Verso, London, 1979.
28. I am alluding to the celebrated thesis of Beck, U., The Risk Society. Sage, London, 1986. See also Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990.
29. I am alluding to the celebrated thesis of Beck, U., The Risk Society. Sage, London, 1986. See also Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1990.
30. The implicatons for state-supported science facilities are, respectively: (1) it would entail the redeployment of laboratories currently pursuing 'original' research for purposes of conducting these critical tests; and (2) it would involve the enhancement of laboratories that support science education at the undergraduate university level and below. One important way in which the state could expand public forums for the discussion of science-based issues is by officially declaring a period of debate and opinion sampling prior to a parliamentary vote.
31. In the context of an exaggerated case for state-supported basic research, Keith Pavitt, the head of the Sussex University Science Policy Research Unit, correctly observes that the agricultural and environmental sciences are genuine long-term results of policy-driven research initiatives. See Pavitt, K., Road to ruin. New Scientist, 3 August 1996, 32-35. However, another important line of policy-driven research (on the effects of smoking on health) has merely led to political procrastination. Pavitt fails to see that the tobacco industry has heavily promoted this research because scientists operate with such 'rigourous' standards of causation that their trained incapacity to assert any strong connection between smoking and cancer without an indefinite number of experiments serves as a bulwark against policymakers who would dare suggest that cigarettes be banned altogether.
32. Stewart, L., The Rise of Public Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992; Golinski, J., Science as Public Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992; Knight, D., The Age of Science. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.
33. Stewart, L., The Rise of Public Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992; Golinski, J., Science as Public Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992; Knight, D., The Age of Science. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.
34. Stewart, L., The Rise of Public Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992; Golinski, J., Science as Public Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992; Knight, D., The Age of Science. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986.
35. An excellent anthropology of 'New Age' knowledges in the United States is Hess, D., Science in the New Age. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1993.
36. Here I have drawn upon Hanson, R., Comparing peer review to information prizes - a possible economics experiment. Social Epistemology, 1995, 9, 49-55. I have presented a comparable proposal that tries to model science competitions on spectator sports. See Fuller, S. The sphere of critical thinking in the post- epistemic world. Informal Logic, 1994, Winter, 39-54.
37. Here I have drawn upon Hanson, R., Comparing peer review to information prizes - a possible economics experiment. Social Epistemology, 1995, 9, 49-55. I have presented a comparable proposal that tries to model science competitions on spectator sports. See Fuller, S. The sphere of critical thinking in the post-epistemic world. Informal Logic, 1994, Winter, 39-54.
38. A serious test for the plausibility of this presupposition is its handling of medical research, especially into the causes of disease. Here I would say that the importance of searching for causes has been greatly exaggerated, often in a way that delays policy implementation (as in the case of effects of smoking on health, see the previous note) and lets the bare promise of a cure divert valuable resources from the dissemination of preventative measures based on what is already known.
39. I am making a veiled critical reference to the most recent UK government white paper on science policy, Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology (HMSO, London, 1993), which routinely conflates 'national economic peformance' (an end of industry) with 'quality of life' (an end of the state). Recently, a Cambridge biochemist and amateur science policy theorist, Terence Kealey, has been accused of recidivistic Thatcherite sentiments for openly advocating that the state divest its investment in scientific research. However, supporters of the Labour Party's newly anointed 'stakeholder society' should begin to see Kealey's point when his opponents argue, 'With no evident beneficiaries, it can only be the taxpayer who foots the bill for basic research' (Editorial, Times Higher Education Supplement, 5 July 1996). Kealey's arguments can be charitably read as demonstrating that research funding is only one possible role for government in science policy, and ultimately a dispensable one. Nevertheless, there would remain a strong role for government in both the training of researchers and the regulation of existing science and technology. Indeed, the current crisis in science employment and the BSE fiasco, both of which are mentioned in the editorial cited above, suggest that the government's role needs to be increased in these areas. See Kealey, T., The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Macmillan, London, 1996.
40. I am making a veiled critical reference to the most recent UK government white paper on science policy, Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology (HMSO, London, 1993), which routinely conflates 'national economic peformance' (an end of industry) with 'quality of life' (an end of the state). Recently, a Cambridge biochemist and amateur science policy theorist, Terence Kealey, has been accused of recidivistic Thatcherite sentiments for openly advocating that the state divest its investment in scientific research. However, supporters of the Labour Party's newly anointed 'stakeholder society' should begin to see Kealey's point when his opponents argue, 'With no evident beneficiaries, it can only be the taxpayer who foots the bill for basic research' (Editorial, Times Higher Education Supplement, 5 July 1996). Kealey's arguments can be charitably read as demonstrating that research funding is only one possible role for government in science policy, and ultimately a dispensable one. Nevertheless, there would remain a strong role for government in both the training of researchers and the regulation of existing science and technology. Indeed, the current crisis in science employment and the BSE fiasco, both of which are mentioned in the editorial cited above, suggest that the government's role needs to be increased in these areas. See Kealey, T., The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Macmillan, London, 1996.
41. I am making a veiled critical reference to the most recent UK government white paper on science policy, Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology (HMSO, London, 1993), which routinely conflates 'national economic peformance' (an end of industry) with 'quality of life' (an end of the state). Recently, a Cambridge biochemist and amateur science policy theorist, Terence Kealey, has been accused of recidivistic Thatcherite sentiments for openly advocating that the state divest its investment in scientific research. However, supporters of the Labour Party's newly anointed 'stakeholder society' should begin to see Kealey's point when his opponents argue, 'With no evident beneficiaries, it can only be the taxpayer who foots the bill for basic research' (Editorial, Times Higher Education Supplement, 5 July 1996). Kealey's arguments can be charitably read as demonstrating that research funding is only one possible role for government in science policy, and ultimately a dispensable one. Nevertheless, there would remain a strong role for government in both the training of researchers and the regulation of existing science and technology. Indeed, the current crisis in science employment and the BSE fiasco, both of which are mentioned in the editorial cited above, suggest that the government's role needs to be increased in these areas. See Kealey, T., The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Macmillan, London, 1996.
42. Interestingly, the military and industrial establishments tend to take somewhat opposite views of this plethora of effort in science. Once the Soviet Union was shown to have created a centralized scientific network that refused to fund proposals that duplicated previous work, the American defence establishment called for the creation of what turned out to be the Institute for Scientific Information, as a means of keeping track of the direction and intensity of scientific research (see Fuller, S. Life in the knowledge society: a case of truly artificial intelligence, Theory, Culture and Society, 1997, 14, 143-155. In contrast, industry looks more benignly on duplicated effort as part of the 'trial-and-error' learning the characterizes the spontaneously organized market for knowledge. In any case, there has been little systematic study of the impact of academic journal-based research has outside academic forums, so the level of wastage in our 'social intelligence' networks may be much higher than is often suspected.
43. This prospect, one very relevant to the American scene (where two-thirds of the population believe in both evolution and creation), is discussed in Fuller, S., Does science put an end to history, or history to science?: why being pro-Science is harder than you think. In Science Wars, ed. A. Ross. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1996.
44. Wuthnow, R., Communities of Discourse: The Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Nineteenth-Century Socialism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
45. For the background political theory to this 'asceticist' gambit, see Cook, T., The Great Alternatives of Social Thought. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 1991, pp. 91-140.
46. In the United Kingdom, this prospect is very much in evidence, with the investment of McDonald's (the fast food chain) in Luton University and Sainsbury's (the supermarket chain) in Manchester Metropolitan University.
47. The most comprehensive history of those debates, and one which highlights the interlocking interests beteween the scientific elite and major American corporations, is Kleinman, D., Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States. Duke University Press, Durham NC, 1995.
48. Kohler, R., Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991.
49. La Follette, M., Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910-1955. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1990, pp. 45-65.
50. Proctor, R., Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 254. It is worth pointing out that Bush and his allies were more successful in diminishing science's public accountability by having much defence research reclassified as 'basic' than by boosting actual research funding (see Reingold, N., Science and government in the United States since 1945. History of Science, 1994, 32, 367-368.
51. Proctor, R., Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 254. It is worth pointing out that Bush and his allies were more successful in diminishing science's public accountability by having much defence research reclassified as 'basic' than by boosting actual research funding (see Reingold, N., Science and government in the United States since 1945. History of Science, 1994, 32, 367-368.
52. Michael Faraday is an especially interesting case because, fully aware of his disadvantaged background, he early volunteered his manual services to Humphry Davy at the Royal Institution's chemistry laboratory, and through apprenticeship, managed to rise up within the establishment, so that he became an 'institutionalized radical'. On Faraday's self-fashioning, see Morus, I., Different experimental lives: Michael Faraday and William Sturgeon. History of Science, 1992, 20: 1-28.
53. Mills, C., Distribution of American research funds. Science, 1948, 107, 127-130.
54. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade. US Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, 1991, pp. 263-265.
55. US Congress, Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, Hearings on Science Legislation, 79th Congress, 1st session, November 1945, pp. 225-227. In the Nature piece on which this section is based, I mistook Leake for Frank Jewett, President of the National Academy of Sciences, who argued that the state should roll back all of its research investment to pre-World War II levels. The public should then be encouraged to treat scientific research programmes as charities, contributions to which may be the source of tax relief. This would certainly provide an incentive for the public, at least those wealthy enough to have incurred a significant tax burden, to acquaint itself with competing research programmes (US Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings on the National Science Foundation, 80th Congress, 1st session, March 1947, pp. 73-76).
56. US Congress, Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, Hearings on Science Legislation, 79th Congress, 1st session, November 1945, pp. 225-227. In the Nature piece on which this section is based, I mistook Leake for Frank Jewett, President of the National Academy of Sciences, who argued that the state should roll back all of its research investment to pre-World War II levels. The public should then be encouraged to treat scientific research programmes as charities, contributions to which may be the source of tax relief. This would certainly provide an incentive for the public, at least those wealthy enough to have incurred a significant tax burden, to acquaint itself with competing research programmes (US Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings on the National Science Foundation, 80th Congress, 1st session, March 1947, pp. 73-76).
57. Merton, R., The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, pp. 439-459.
58. Kevles, D., The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy. Isis, 1977, 68, 5-26.
59. Even opponents of the democratization of science need to explain how it has been possible for many of the greatest scientific achievements to be made by people who were considered 'slow' in their day, such as Darwin and Einstein. Rather than allowing only the intellectual upper crust to pursue scientific careers, it might be better to promote a spread of wits, so that radical but underdeveloped ideas are not rejected out of hand by the quicker wits who know all the 'standard counterarguments' (see Fuller, S., The sphere of critical thinking in the post-epistemic world. Informal Logic, 1994, winter, 39-54).
60. Ironically, despite their claims for being long-term thinkers, those who today defend the maintenance, if not increase, of basic research spending neglect the fact that, over the past century, science funding has been subject to recurrent cycles of mobilization (for war) and (postwar) conversion. In the context of US federal science funding, the phases of the cycle since 1917, the start of America's involvement in World War I, are charted in Reingold, N., Science and government in the United States since 1945. History of Science, 1994, 32, 367.
61. This problem has re-emerged as transnational corporations have insisted on more comprehensive intellectual property rights (see Drahos, P. Information feudalism in the information society. The Information Society, 1995, 11, 209-222).
62. Proctor, R., Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 238. As suggested above, in recent years, the problem of unnoticed research has come to rival that of disruptive research. Given the mass of unread scientific publications, it might be best to divert scientists' efforts to teaching, where their work would be of more direct benefit. See Malcolm, N. Sinking in a sea of words, Independent on Sunday, 1996, 21 July, 21.
63. Proctor, R., Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 238. As suggested above, in recent years, the problem of unnoticed research has come to rival that of disruptive research. Given the mass of unread scientific publications, it might be best to divert scientists' efforts to teaching, where their work would be of more direct benefit. See Malcolm, N. Sinking in a sea of words, Independent on Sunday, 1996, 21 July, 21.
64. Britain provided the exemplar that American scientists followed in the 1920s and 1930s. An especially influential figure in the latter period was the X-ray crystallographer and Marxist historian of science, John Desmond Bernal, whose view of science policy as a form of labour-management relations was influenced by Alfred Mond, head of the Imperial Chemical Industries (see Jones, G., Science, Politics and the Cold War. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1988, pp. 6-14.
65. Kuznick, P., Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930s America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987.
66. Hutton, W., The State We're In. Jonathan Cape, London, 1995.
67. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade. US Office of Technology Assessment, Washington DC, 1991, 159 (40).
68. Levine, Z., Biographical Information and Candidate Statements for the 1994 Election of Councillors to the American Physical Society. American Physical Society, Washington, DC, 1994, p. 17.
69. Holden, C., Careers '95: the future of the Ph.D. Science, 1995, 270, 121-145. It is worth underscoring that the depth of the problem of interdisciplinary understanding means that it needs to be addressed during initial training, not simply by 'on-the-job experience'. A currently popular argument for state-supported research is the 'collective store of tacit knowledge' that supposedly results from scientists working with people in other disciplines, government and industry (see Science Policy Research Unit, The Relationship Between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance. HM Treasury, London, 1996). However, the fact that such knowledge emerges from the research environment after the scientist has already completed his or her education may simply represent a deficiency in training that could be addressed much earlier and hence made more intelligible than the expression 'collective store of tacit knowledge' suggests. An experimental paradigm for the promotion of interdisciplinary understanding involves medical students and social work students in a 'shared learning' programme during their final year of university study, in which they are required to work together in groups to solve problems of common concern. Being still students, their professional identities and status sensibilities had not yet solidified, which enabled them to succeed at the task at hand and to be receptive to cooperative ventures with members of the corresponding group in the future (see Carpenter, J. and Hewstone, M., Shared learning for doctors and social workers: evaluation of a programme. British Journal of Social Work, 1996, 26, 239-257).
70. Holden, C., Careers '95: the future of the Ph.D. Science, 1995, 270, 121-145. It is worth underscoring that the depth of the problem of interdisciplinary understanding means that it needs to be addressed during initial training, not simply by 'on-the-job experience'. A currently popular argument for state-supported research is the 'collective store of tacit knowledge' that supposedly results from scientists working with people in other disciplines, government and industry (see Science Policy Research Unit, The Relationship Between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance. HM Treasury, London, 1996). However, the fact that such knowledge emerges from the research environment after the scientist has already completed his or her education may simply represent a deficiency in training that could be addressed much earlier and hence made more intelligible than the expression 'collective store of tacit knowledge' suggests. An experimental paradigm for the promotion of interdisciplinary understanding involves medical students and social work students in a 'shared learning' programme during their final year of university study, in which they are required to work together in groups to solve problems of common concern. Being still students, their professional identities and status sensibilities had not yet solidified, which enabled them to succeed at the task at hand and to be receptive to cooperative ventures with members of the corresponding group in the future (see Carpenter, J. and Hewstone, M., Shared learning for doctors and social workers: evaluation of a programme. British Journal of Social Work, 1996, 26, 239-257).
71. Holden, C., Careers '95: the future of the Ph.D. Science, 1995, 270, 121-145. It is worth underscoring that the depth of the problem of interdisciplinary understanding means that it needs to be addressed during initial training, not simply by 'on-the-job experience'. A currently popular argument for state-supported research is the 'collective store of tacit knowledge' that supposedly results from scientists working with people in other disciplines, government and industry (see Science Policy Research Unit, The Relationship Between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance. HM Treasury, London, 1996). However, the fact that such knowledge emerges from the research environment after the scientist has already completed his or her education may simply represent a deficiency in training that could be addressed much earlier and hence made more intelligible than the expression 'collective store of tacit knowledge' suggests. An experimental paradigm for the promotion of interdisciplinary understanding involves medical students and social work students in a 'shared learning' programme during their final year of university study, in which they are required to work together in groups to solve problems of common concern. Being still students, their professional identities and status sensibilities had not yet solidified, which enabled them to succeed at the task at hand and to be receptive to cooperative ventures with members of the corresponding group in the future (see Carpenter, J. and Hewstone, M., Shared learning for doctors and social workers: evaluation of a programme. British Journal of Social Work, 1996, 26, 239-257).
72. Fuller, S., Why Post-Industrial Society Never Came: What a False Prophecy Can Teach Us About the Impact of Technology on Academia. Academe, 1994, 80 (6), 22-28.
73. Editorial, Times Higher Education Supplement, 19 April 1996.
74. Reich, R., The Work of Nations. Random House, New York, 1992, pp. 122-125.
75. US NSB, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, Washington D.C., 1991, p. 110.
76. On average worldwide, the public is three times more interested in science-based issues than they are knowledgeable of them (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 450). Although the US exhibits a larger discrepancy between the public's interest and knowledge of science than most countries (roughly, 5:1 versus 3:1), there nevertheless seems to be a uniform 10- 15% of citizens who are knowledgeable of science, regardless of country (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 466). Moreover, scientists are trusted less in countries that are widely regarded as leaders in the production of scientific knowledge, such as Japan and Germany (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 464).
77. On average worldwide, the public is three times more interested in science-based issues than they are knowledgeable of them (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 450). Although the US exhibits a larger discrepancy between the public's interest and knowledge of science than most countries (roughly, 5:1 versus 3:1), there nevertheless seems to be a uniform 10-15% of citizens who are knowledgeable of science, regardless of country (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 466). Moreover, scientists are trusted less in countries that are widely regarded as leaders in the production of scientific knowledge, such as Japan and Germany (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 464).
78. On average worldwide, the public is three times more interested in science-based issues than they are knowledgeable of them (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 450). Although the US exhibits a larger discrepancy between the public's interest and knowledge of science than most countries (roughly, 5:1 versus 3:1), there nevertheless seems to be a uniform 10- 15% of citizens who are knowledgeable of science, regardless of country (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 466). Moreover, scientists are trusted less in countries that are widely regarded as leaders in the production of scientific knowledge, such as Japan and Germany (NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators, 10th edn. US National Science Board, 1991, p. 464).
79. Lederman, L., Science: The End of the Frontier? American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 1991.
80. Federally Funded Science: Decisions for a Decade US Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, 1991, pp. 205-230.
81. Boyer, E., Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation, Princeton, 1990.
82. For a development of this part of the argument in the American context, see Fuller, S., Putting people back into the business of science: constituting a national forum for setting the research agenda. In Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy, ed. J. Collier. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1996, pp. 233-266.
83. Cordes, C. Critics say membership of federal science panels is too narrow. Chronicle of Higher Education, 1996, 8 March, A26.
84. An interesting comparison to pursue would be the 'disunity' of scientific disciplines and the emergence of multi-denominational Christianity. Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that when Europe was united as 'Christendom', contradictory elements of Church doctrine were neutralized in practices that stressed different elements on different occasions. However, with secularization came the elimination of many of these practices, which in turn served to make the doctrinal contradictions appear stark and irresoluble (MacIntyre, A., Is understanding religion compatible with believing? In Rationality, ed. B. Wilson. Blackwell, Oxford, 1970, pp. 62-77). Similarly, if the end of state funding for science were to end the perception of a unified conception of science, the fact that the physical, life and social sciences operate with fundamentally different ontological assumptions would perhaps rise to the surface to become a point of public contention. In any case, the public already seems to have an instinctively clearer sense of such cross-disciplinary differences than practicing scientists who, despite their clear theoretical and methodological differences, continue to talk in terms of a 'Science' common to them all. Indeed, what scientists often see as the public's 'confusion' about the nature of science may simply be the public's recognition that there is no 'nature' to science. A scholarly consideration of this matter may be found in: Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1995; and Fuller, S., Does science put an end to history, or history to science? Why being proscience is harder than you think. In Science Wars, ed. A. Ross. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1996.
85. An interesting comparison to pursue would be the 'disunity' of scientific disciplines and the emergence of multi-denominational Christianity. Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that when Europe was united as 'Christendom', contradictory elements of Church doctrine were neutralized in practices that stressed different elements on different occasions. However, with secularization came the elimination of many of these practices, which in turn served to make the doctrinal contradictions appear stark and irresoluble (MacIntyre, A., Is understanding religion compatible with believing? In Rationality, ed. B. Wilson. Blackwell, Oxford, 1970, pp. 62-77). Similarly, if the end of state funding for science were to end the perception of a unified conception of science, the fact that the physical, life and social sciences operate with fundamentally different ontological assumptions would perhaps rise to the surface to become a point of public contention. In any case, the public already seems to have an instinctively clearer sense of such cross-disciplinary differences than practicing scientists who, despite their clear theoretical and methodological differences, continue to talk in terms of a 'Science' common to them all. Indeed, what scientists often see as the public's 'confusion' about the nature of science may simply be the public's recognition that there is no 'nature' to science. A scholarly consideration of this matter may be found in: Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1995; and Fuller, S., Does science put an end to history, or history to science? Why being proscience is harder than you think. In Science Wars, ed. A. Ross. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1996.
86. An interesting comparison to pursue would be the 'disunity' of scientific disciplines and the emergence of multi-denominational Christianity. Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that when Europe was united as 'Christendom', contradictory elements of Church doctrine were neutralized in practices that stressed different elements on different occasions. However, with secularization came the elimination of many of these practices, which in turn served to make the doctrinal contradictions appear stark and irresoluble (MacIntyre, A., Is understanding religion compatible with believing? In Rationality, ed. B. Wilson. Blackwell, Oxford, 1970, pp. 62-77). Similarly, if the end of state funding for science were to end the perception of a unified conception of science, the fact that the physical, life and social sciences operate with fundamentally different ontological assumptions would perhaps rise to the surface to become a point of public contention. In any case, the public already seems to have an instinctively clearer sense of such cross-disciplinary differences than practicing scientists who, despite their clear theoretical and methodological differences, continue to talk in terms of a 'Science' common to them all. Indeed, what scientists often see as the public's 'confusion' about the nature of science may simply be the public's recognition that there is no 'nature' to science. A scholarly consideration of this matter may be found in: Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1995; and Fuller, S., Does science put an end to history, or history to science? Why being proscience is harder than you think. In Science Wars, ed. A. Ross. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1996.