Abstract
The interdiscipline of science and technology studies (‘STS’) has been characterized by its descriptive analyses of the presumptions and practices of scientific communities, and by numerous theoretical internal debates over the proper framework of analysis of science. While STS has not been characterized by a powerful effect on law and government, both of which are consumers of scientific expertise, an opportunity arises for engagement in public policy disputes due to the willful ignorance regarding science in the Trump administration, and the negative effects of political agendas and conflicts of interest therein. The urgent need for reliable expertise in such political contexts is addressed in the so-called third wave of STS that is based on Harry Collins and Rob Evans’s innovative ‘architecture of expertise.’ Two recent book chapters, namely Darrin Durant’s essay on ignoring experts and Martin Weinel’s essay on counterfeit scientific controversies, serve as practical examples of third-wave theory. Bruno Latour, who was engaged in a debate with Collins (and others in STS) concerning their respective approaches during the 1990s, also recently addressed the need for expertise (particularly climate expertise) in government contexts. Nowadays, Collins and Latour both promote consensus expertise and identify its reliance (for its authority) on science as a trusted institution. This article compares the similarities (and acknowledges the differences) between Collins and Latour with respect to their pragmatic strategies, and concludes that notwithstanding internal debates, STS scholars should join Collins (with Evans) and Latour to look outward toward critique and correction of governments that ignore scientific expertise.
Highlights
In spite of the huge enrichment of our critical understanding of the nature of science that has taken place since the 1970s, it is still important and intellectually possible to value expertise. . . . It is better to give more weight to the opinions of those who, literally, know what they are talking about.[2]
While STS has not been characterized by a powerful effect on law and government, both of which are consumers of scientific expertise, an opportunity arises for engagement in public policy disputes due to the willful ignorance regarding science in the Trump administration, and the negative effects of political agendas and conflicts of interest therein
The urgent need for reliable expertise in such political contexts is addressed in the so-called third wave of STS that is based on Harry Collins and Rob Evans’s innovative ‘architecture of expertise.’
Summary
In spite of the huge enrichment of our critical understanding of the nature of science that has taken place since the 1970s, it is still important and intellectually possible to value expertise. . . . It is better to give more weight to the opinions of those who, literally, know what they are talking about.[2]. Collins was accused of perpetuating the nature/society divide (by explaining the closure of a scientific controversy in terms of Society, not Nature) Nowadays, it is Collins who, by initiating the third wave in STS, is accused of a certain realism, while Latour’s recent Down to Earth (2018), concerned with the need for governments to attend to climate science, clearly emphasizes the cultural and institutional support upon which expertise relies. Without implying that Collins (with Evans) and Latour are the only STS scholars concerned with expertise in the public policy realm, it is significant that three of the major scholars associated with STS—the two initiators of the third wave and an originator of actor network theory—have converged on a constructive, pragmatic tangent (the shared motivation to limit political influences on science) notwithstanding their ongoing disagreements (which I characterize as internal to STS). I conclude in Part VI that STS scholars nowadays should, using their own expertise in expertise, join Collins (with Evans) and Latour to look outward—setting aside theoretical differences for a moment—toward critique and correction of governments that so strikingly ignore scientific expertise, in part to combat distrust of scientific institutions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
