Social Responsibility In Science Research Articles

The ethics of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in the earth system sciences

Institutions’ motivations for pursuing diversity, equity, inclusion and justice (DEIJ) often center on the benefits to the organization, an argument known as the business case for diversity in which diverse teams are more creative, set high bars for research, and produce ideas that are more innovative than those produced by homogeneous groups. As the sole motivation for DEIJ efforts, the business case is flawed and does not address the harmful workplaces many marginalized scholars encounter. Institutions can make more progress towards diversifying the STEM workforce by acknowledging the ethical responsibilities for doing so and transitioning to an equity-centered approach. Emphasizing personal motivations to actively engage in DEIJ work resonates with individuals more, rather than engaging with DEIJ to benefit an institution’s goals. Two recent studies support this argument. The first is an alumni survey and focus groups of postdoctoral fellows in the Advanced Studies Program at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to explore alumni efforts and motivations for engaging in DEIJ work. The second study surveyed attitudes towards DEIJ efforts among STEM graduate students at Colorado State University who took a course on social responsibility in science. Both studies show the motivations for scientists to support and get involved in these efforts and indicate that the business case is misaligned with the motivations of students and professionals in STEM. Understanding the attitudes and motivations that individuals have for DEIJ in STEM presents an opportunity for how institutions can best learn from and support these motivations for systemic change.

Must Introductory Genetics Start with Mendel?

It is 157 years since Mendel presented his results on hybridisation in peas to the Brünn Society for Natural Science. The discipline of genetics has dramatically changed since then, with technological advancements revealing multifactorial causation and trait variability. Whilst none of this complexity featured in the discovery of classical genetics, Mendel and his peas still dominate teaching today. Must genetics always start from such a simplistic, determinist perspective? A number of recent studies (e.g. Donovan, 2021; Dougherty, 2010; Jamieson & Radick, 2013) have made the case for emphasising the complexity of genetics from the beginning. In this study, I will examine the origins and fate of two earlier attempts at reform, from the 1970s and 1980s. One was from Steven Rose, a biochemist in London and founder of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, who developed a genetics course for distance teaching at the Open University. The other was from Garland Allen, a historian of science and influential writer of biology textbooks, including four editions of Study of Biology. Both tried to depart from the standard start-with-Mendel script, in ways that aimed to help students better appreciate not only the complexities of genetics but also embedding genetics—and genetic knowledge—in society. Both met significant resistance, with concerns varying from the creation of unrealistic demands on students to the time and cost of making large-scale changes to textbooks. In closing, I will suggest that the experiences of Rose and Allen hold valuable lessons for reformers of the genetics curriculum today.

Non-cognitive Values: A Warrant of the Rationality and Responsibility of Science

Although the presence of cognitive values in science has been accepted for half a century, until recently it was claimed that the presence of non-cognitive values threatened the rationality and objectivity of science and it was a sign of a scientist’s weakness. This view appeared to be correct when cognitive and non-cognitive values were treated dichotomously, and science was seen as a set of theories and procedures. The analysis of science as a social practice shows however that this dichotomy cannot be maintained and that the scientist, when planning and conducting research, makes assumptions which include value judgments encompassing certain non-cognitive values. Ignoring the presence of non-cognitive values does not secure objectivity and rationality of science. On the contrary, since they are constitutive elements of scientific research, pretending that they do not work in research exposes science to ideologization. Rational subordination of science to them becomes a vehicle and a warrant of not only rationality but also objectivity and social responsibility of science. This in turn allows us to restore the proper place of science in culture.

Ośrodek Badań Historii Kobiet Instytutu Studiów Kobiecych. Dokonania, plany naukowe, perspektywy badawcze

The summary of the achievements of the Women’s History Research Center in 2019–2021 as part of the “DIALOG” grant program is positive. This is an incentive for the research team associated with the Center to continue cooperation in the following years. A new field of joint activity under the ministerial program “SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SCIENCE” could become in the years 2022–2023 press studies (more broadly media studies) focused on media addressed to women and their public perception. Attention should be given to the publications appearing in the 19th–20th-century traditional press as well as on the 20th–21st-century audiovisual media, both classic and digital. When examining their social perception, one should not forget about the use of spoken accounts that fit into the oral history research area, about egodocuments and intimism so important in biography, as well as about traditional and digital press photography.

COVID-19 heralds a new epistemology of science for the public good.

COVID-19 has revealed that science needs to learn how to better deal with the irreducible uncertainty that comes with global systemic risks as well as with the social responsibility of science towards the public good. Further developing the epistemological principles of new theories and experimental practices, alternative investigative pathways and communication, and diverse voices can be an important contribution of history and philosophy of science and of science studies to ongoing transformations of the scientific enterprise.

Science Communication as a Boundary Space: An Interactive Installation about the Social Responsibility of Science

Science communication has traditionally been seen as a means of crossing the boundary of science: moving scientific knowledge into the public. This paper presents an alternative understanding. Drawing upon a particular case of social science communication in the form of an interactive installation about the social responsibility of science, it develops the concept of boundary space where phenomena can simultaneously belong to science and nonscience. In addition, the paper describes how the installation functions as a space for interaction between knowledge communication and knowledge production. The paper argues that we should understand science communication as a social practice, which allows scientists and nonscientists to cooperate in performing science as an important part of society. The aim is to add a new kind of analysis to traditional criticisms of deficit-thinking and popularization by asking what can we say more about science communication if we understand it as part of (rather than separated in time and space from) science as a social activity.

Science and Politics

Hilary Rose, a sociologist, and Steven Rose, a neuroscientist, were two of the principal founders of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science in the late 1960s in London. They speak about their work as scientists and antiwar activists, particularly around the issue of Palestinian liberation.

Social responsibility of science

This article tackles the problem of social involvement by academics and researchers. The author defines social responsibility widely as the involvement of knowledge, academics and educational institutions in solving the problems of the local community. The concept predicts that this can come about not only by disseminating research results, but also by involvement in pro-social activity without loss of autonomy. The author shows that this can be a way of building trust in science, as well as being a tool in opposing the anti-science culture. It can also be a means of rebuilding the status of science in a world of information bubbles and fake news.

Precarious living: The social origins of uncertainty

Abstract This article argues that understanding uncertainty in contemporary societies and its psychosocial consequences is possible through a transdisciplinary perspective. This integrates sociological, psychological, economic and political dimensions. To address this, we offer a critical theoretical reflection that draws on diverse conceptual perspectives within the social sciences. In recent years, in psychological research, uncertainty has been mainly analysed as an intrapsychic phenomenon and as a psychological trait through the concept of (in)tolerance of uncertainty. In contrast, we argue for a psychosocial analysis of uncertainty, considering its socio-economic and political origins, thereby challenging its trait-like analysis. For example, we highlight the inputs of attachment theory for the understanding of uncertainty, connecting it to Marris’s thesis of an unequal distribution of uncertainty and of the power to cope with it (1996). This analysis of uncertainty integrates psychological dimensions with social ones within contemporary western societies, proposing the use of the concept of psychosocial uncertainty. The consequences of uncertainties impact upon employment, relationships and communities, where we can locate the social origins of depression, anxiety, distrust, victim-blaming or lack of cohesion in communities. Besides precarity at work, we now face precarious forms of living, endangering the fundamental processes of psychic and social individuation. Finally, we locate the social origins of uncertainty and its psychological consequences within the responsibilities of social sciences. Drawing on psychology, from social and community psychology to clinical and organizational psychology, we query the relationship between theory and practice. Underpinning this argument is an appreciation of Marris’s contribution to the construction of ‘politics of collaboration/association and reciprocity, as opposed to politics of disempowering uncertainty/dissociation’.

Penser l’indissociabilité de l’éthique de la recherche, de l’intégrité scientifique et de la responsabilité sociale des sciences

Dans un contexte d’institutionnalisation croissante des questionnements éthiques à propos de la recherche scientifique, nous postulons la nécessité d’une clarification conceptuelle, qu’expose cet article, entre éthique de la recherche, intégrité scientifique et responsabilité sociale. L’enjeu est à la fois de qualifier chacun de ces trois domaines et de proposer un mode de composition entre eux, composition qui doit aussi faire œuvre de discernement entre les enjeux éthiques, normatifs et politiques. L’hypothèse que nous défendons dans cette contribution est de positionner l’éthique de la recherche comme un pivot réflexif entre intégrité scientifique (démarche orientée vers la communauté) et responsabilité sociale (démarche orientée vers la société). Un positionnement auquel nous donnons une dimension épistémologique en qualifiant l’éthique de la recherche d’éthique épistémologiquement générique.

Socio-Humanistic Support for Technological Development: What Should It Be Like?

Prospects for the humanities and social sciences under the conditions of the so-called technoscientific stage of the development of science, characterized by closely entwined scientific research and scientific design and highlighting the objectives of creating new equipment and technologies and not obtaining basic knowledge, are discussed. The author analyzes the historical peculiarities of technoscience as a specific form, on the one hand, of organization of scientific cognition and, on the other, of interaction between science and society, separating processes that increase the social responsibility of science and the effects of orientation toward solving pragmatic problems on scientific process, in particular, the transformation of methodological norms. The concepts of social and humanistic technologies are considered critically; several problems that arise owing to the technologization of socio-humanistic knowledge are investigated. It is justified that technological development requires not only a complex approach, implying the use of socio-humanistic technologies, but also socio-humanistic support, which cannot be understood technologically. The disciplinary status of such support is discussed; in particular, the recent widely used concept of transdisciplinarity is analyzed, and the conclusion is made that socio-humanistic support goes beyond professional scientific activity into the sphere of broad social practice. Foresight is considered as an example of such a transformation.

Technological art and Studio International’s eclectic vanguardism

ABSTRACTThis article takes the editorship by Peter Townsend of Studio International, to which the author contributed regularly between 1969 and 1972, as a starting-point to recall decisive personal encounters with Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings, Wen-Ying Tsai’s sculptures, Jasia Reichardt’s exhibition Cybernetic Serendipity and the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science. It goes on to re-endorse the earlier argument that a long historical time-scale was required for the aesthetic implications of photography to become clear, and that, like photography, the computer and holography are technological media whose immediate interactions with aesthetics and the culture at large will take many decades to pan out. Earlier claims about the relationship between art and ecology are then reviewed. Finally the article suggests that though world politics have changed considerably since the 1960s and 1970s, artists have undiminished opportunities to grapple with the challenges of new technologies directly, rather than retreating into a closed system.

Carl Heinrich Becker’s university reform and the ‘Deutsche Kampfspiele’ 1922

This study deals with the relationship between Carl Heinrich Becker’s university reforms in the Weimar Republic and the ‘Deutsche Kampfspiele’ 1922. These national olympical games served as a broad basis for medical, psychological, and anthropometrical mass experiments which were stimulated by Becker’s ideas of interdisciplinarity and social responsibility of science. By converting the classical perspective on Becker’s failure the occupation with these national games reveals criteria for a successful concept of science from both a scientifical and ethical point of view that were crucial for his ideas. Based on a huge number of records furthermore this article shows many unknown aspects of the history of early sports medicine and sports science.

From Radical Science to Luddism: A Post-BSSRS Activist Perspective on the Politics of Technology

This paper reflects on my experience of technology politics activism over the last 25 years, especially its relationship to the work of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science (BSS...

Science and responsibility for the well-being of the global community

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the topic of the social responsibility and the scientist from a philosophical perspective. This is a (relatively) neglected topic, as philosophers have tended to focus on moral responsibility. Nevertheless, it is important, and timely. Design/methodology/approach Analytical, based on the author’s previous work. This is not an empirical study. Findings That it is essential for scientists to adopt a global outlook with respect to their social responsibilities. This is in (stark) contrast to the conclusion that would be reached for moral responsibility. Research limitations/implications In addition to offering some concrete proposals (see below), a general approach to the question is offered that will be useful for further work. Practical implications Were the suggestions for socially responsible science put into practice, then this would entail a re-orientation of some parts of scientific research; for instance, a moratorium on weapons research. Social implications The long-run social implications of not re-orienting science, for instance not to focus even more effort on climate change, will be negative in the extreme. Originality/value The social responsibility of science has always been important, but it is even more important today. By focussing on global responsibility, this paper offers a new approach.

The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science

ABSTRACTSocial responsibility is an essential part of the responsible conduct of research that presents difficult ethical questions for scientists. Recognizing one’s social responsibilities as a scientist is an important first step toward exercising social responsibility, but it is only the beginning, since scientists may confront difficult value questions when deciding how to act responsibly. Ethical dilemmas related to socially responsible science fall into at least three basic categories: 1) dilemmas related to problem selection, 2) dilemmas related to publication and data sharing, and 3) dilemmas related to engaging society. In responding to these dilemmas, scientists must decide how to balance their social responsibilities against other professional commitments and how to avoid compromising their objectivity. In this article, we will examine the philosophical and ethical basis of social responsibility in science, discuss some of the ethical dilemmas related to exercising social responsibility, and make five recommendations to help scientists deal with these issues.

‘Divine right’ or democracy? The Royal Society ‘revolt’ of 1935

In October 1934, several Fellows of the Royal Society submitted a petition critical of the oligarchic nature of the Society's Council and the power wielded by a small elite in the Society's activities. The ‘Royal Society Reform Group’ also voiced concern over the Society's neglect of the increasingly pressing public issue of the ‘social responsibility of science’, and fundamentally questioned the role of the Royal Society as a representative body for science. Against a background of national economic crisis and political upheaval, the reformers sought to ensure that the Royal Society should act as an authoritative public voice for scientists rather than for establishment science. In so doing they raised profound political issues concerning the relationships between the Society, working scientists, other scientific institutions and the wider polity. The Reform Group's campaign culminated in the first contested Council election in living memory in November 1935, when more than half of the Fellowship attended in person to vote. In this paper I explore the activities and changing public role of the Royal Society in the inter-war years, the reformers' campaign, the Royal Society's response and the outcomes of this ‘Revolt in the Royal Society’.

Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975 (review)

Reviewed by: Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975 Barton C. Hacker (bio) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. By Kelly Moore. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008. Pp. x+311. $35. As a sociologist, Kelly Moore is very much concerned with generalizing on the historical data she has unearthed, which are considerable. Her data support a straightforward thesis: The unquestioned preeminence of science in the United States at the end of World War II had largely vanished within three decades. This was at least in part because some scientists sought to redefine the proper “relationships between fact and value, between politics and science, and between expert and citizen” (p. 2). Disrupting Science addresses the critique of science through a theory of social movements wrapped around four organizational case studies. After an overview, Moore’s second chapter offers a more theoretical introduction; it reviews [End Page 947] the relationship of science to the American polity, especially its military arm, from 1945 to the mid-1970s, and then sorts the opinions of critics as moral-individualist (her invented term), or liberal, or new left. The next four chapters present the case studies, first of the moral-individualist Society for Social Responsibility in Science (chapter 3), then of the liberal St. Louis Committee for Nuclear Information (chapter 4). Chapters 5 and 6 follow the rise of a new-left critique of science in a variety of campus antiwar activities leading to the formation of SESPA (Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action), which subsequently metamorphosed into Science for the People. A concluding chapter returns to the theory of social movements. In her theoretical chapters, Moore is prone to sweeping generalizations that are either wrong or questionable; e.g., “The close association between scientific research and the military began after World War II” (p. 4), or “The Korean War in particular confirmed to many scientists, politicians, and military leaders that science and engineering could be put to great use in wartime, and as a result, R&D monies tripled” (p. 26). The endnote to this breathtaking misunderstanding refers only to a summary of federal budgets. The book has other flaws as well. Some are merely annoying, such as Moore’s unfortunate penchant for acronyms, ranging from the idiosyncratic, as WU for Washington University in St. Louis, to the incorrect, as S-90 instead of Sr-90 for strontium-90. Even the book’s subtitle is quite misleading. There is no “politics of the military” here. Like virtually every other analysis of science and scientists after World War II, Disrupting Science treats “the military” as a mirror or black box, devoid of internal structure, politics, or agency, against which science or scientists rail, struggle, organize, or what have you. Moore also very much restricts the kind of organizations she examines, which range from liberal to radical; she has little to say about scientists organizing in support of right-wing causes like creationism or continued nuclear weapons testing, or in opposition to fluoridation. She presents the views of individual scientists and scientific reports, but she rarely considers individual pronouncements in the context of the weight of scientific opinion. About science itself, Moore can be decidedly shaky, seemingly unable to dig beneath the rhetoric to address the underlying phenomena in any useful way. Her discussion of the Committee for Nuclear Information, for instance, misstates the basic character of the fallout controversy. She also uses “atomic” rather than “nuclear,” conflates explosive power and fallout, and seems to equate “atomic energy” with “nuclear weapons.” On the plus side, Moore’s book is very well-organized and her prose is mostly clear and serviceable, something not always true of sociological writing. She has done her homework, as her fifty-three pages of endnotes (pp. 215–67) and twenty-three pages of bibliography (pp. 269–91) testify. The scholarly apparatus and an exhaustive index (pp. 293–311) account for [End Page 948] a third of the book. Reflecting her extensive archival work, Moore seems particularly informative on the activities and inner workings of those organizations that comprise her case studies. These are the...

Lab‐scale intervention

From mobile phones and laptop computers to in vitro fertilization and social networks on the Internet, technological devices, products and services are increasingly shaping the lives of people around the world. The pervasiveness of technology and the underlying science that makes it possible has led to a certain ambivalence: most people trust that ‘science’ will eventually help them to live longer, healthier and happier lives. However, they also feel increasingly uncomfortable about certain new technologies, often those that challenge or improve on ‘nature’. Genetically modified crops, gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning, renewed interest in nuclear power: the list of controversial topics involving science and technology is growing steadily and debates on these topics regularly occupy centre stage in public and political arenas. > …the research process itself constitutes a largely overlooked opportunity for addressing social concerns Policy‐makers have responded by calling for increased attention to be paid to the ethical, legal and social aspects of scientific research and technological developments. In particular, new and emerging areas of research—such as genomics, synthetic biology and nanotechnology—have been accompanied by studies of their broader societal implications as well as public‐engagement efforts, in order to guide research and development in ways that respect societal concerns. Such attempts to shape technological trajectories have traditionally occurred both before scientific research, for example, through research policy, technology assessment or public participation, and afterwards, through regulations or market mechanisms. Although these stages are crucial points at which to intervene, the research process itself constitutes a largely overlooked opportunity for addressing social concerns. Indeed, if one acknowledges the central role that scientific research has in the innovation process, this is an area well worth examining. Shaping technological trajectories will, at some point, include shaping the very research processes that help to characterize them (Fisher et al , 2006). Social and …

The Changing Role and Contribution of Social Science to Nuclear Waste Management in Finland

This article explores both the social and political usage of social science research and its effectiveness, as perceived by experts, in the process of planning and decision-making in the context of Finnish nuclear waste management. The argument is that public participation in the process is important, but to reach some kind of public acceptability the actors in charge of “solving” the nuclear waste problem have to govern the societal process and respond to the claims and the needs of the public. This requires the integration of social science research into the process responsible for developing the nuclear waste management model. In trying to understand the uniquely positive nuclear waste siting decision by the Eurajoki municipal council in January 2000, and the decision-in-principle ratified by the Finnish Parliament in May 2001, one has to pay close attention to the bureaucratic processes underlying those decisions. Some kind of public consent, contentment or acceptability was reached in those long and skilful bureaucratic processes, involving both deliberative techniques and a responsive use of social science. A more general reflection underpinning the study concerns the deepening relationship between science and politics, including the growing bureaucratic ethos of science, the social responsibility of science, the increasing need to control the quality of different societal processes, and the legitimization of societal and political aims.