Science-society Relationships Research Articles

Scientific temper: towards an alternate model of science-society relationships

Scientific temper, a mainstay in Indian science policies and science communication/education programmes, conceptualises citizens as scientifically conscious and powerful agents that approach societal issues with a rational and critical mind rather than taking refuge in religious, superstitious and pseudoscientific worldviews. Our essay provides a brief history of this term and compares it with existing science communication models to demonstrate how, despite sharing commonalities, it is distinct from models like deficit, dialogue, and participation. We elucidate how scientific temper fosters critical features like a process-oriented approach, reflexivity, democratisation of scientific expertise and being a potential tool for decolonisation. Lastly, we propose scientific temper as an alternate framework for democratising knowledge-making and -sharing, building an engaged deliberative citizenry, and studying science-society relationships overall.

Responsible innovation goes south: critique, othering, and a commitment to care

ABSTRACT This paper employs critique as othering to engage with mainstream renderings of Responsible Innovation (R(R)I) in a non-western setting. To re-image science-society relationships, initial framings of R(R)I argued for distancing from corrosive critiques of S&T and embracing democratic engagement. However, RIs fixation on Europe as its ‘Centre' led to ‘othering' and dis-engagement in the Indian context. Consequently, the critique of R(R)I by Indian actors resulted in re-framing it as ‘business-as-usual.’ I argue that rather than distancing from critique of S&T, R(R)I must revisit and deepen its commitments to care. A care-based approach demands that we continuously pay attention to the absent, neglected, and marginalized concerns without being over-invested in origins, naming, and institutionalization. The auto-ethnographical account demonstrates that embodying a critical edge (due to specific locations, entanglements, and attachments of the researcher) could generate interest, relationality, and care for neglected concerns rather than creating distance and othering.

Models of Teaching Science Communication

Changes in the communication ecosystem have generated profound transformations in current science communication. In the same way, the coexistence of diverse actors with different objectives and professional standards also raises new ethical dilemmas. The main objective of this research was to identify existing models of teaching science communication to scientists and professional communicators worldwide. To this end, we conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with science communication teachers from 15 different countries. From these interviews, we identified three models of teaching science communication to scientists: (A) the practical model, where skills such as writing, public speaking, etc., are taught; (B) the reflective model that teaches theory and the history of science communication to enable researchers to understand the relationship between science and society; and (C) the disruptive model, where traditional roles of scientific knowledge production as well as relationships and power roles in science are challenged. On the other hand, we have identified two models for professional science communicators: (A) the professional model, which is subdivided into two different approaches—theoretical (historical review, understanding of the science–society relationships, etc.) and skill-based (writing, audiovisual, etc.) that coexist in teaching programs—and (B) the research model, where tools, concepts, and methodologies for science communication research are taught.

Intellectual property meets transdisciplinary co-design: prioritizing responsiveness in the production of new AgTech through located response-ability

This paper explores the complex relationship between intellectual property (IP) and the transdisciplinary collaborative design (co-design) of new digital technologies for agriculture (AgTech). More specifically, it explores how prioritizing the capturing of IP as a central researcher responsibility can cause disruptions to research relationships and project outcomes. We argue that boundary-making processes associated with IP create a particular context through which responsibility can, and must, be located and cultivated by researchers working within transdisciplinary collaborations. We draw from interview data and situated IP practices from a transdisciplinary co-design project in Aotearoa New Zealand to illustrate how IP is a fluid boundary-requiring-and-producing object that impels researchers into its management, and produces tensions that need to be noticed and skillfully navigated within research relations. We propose located response-ability as a conceptual tool and practice to reposition IP within the relations that make up a transdisciplinary co-design project, as opposed to prioritizing IP by default without recognizing its possible impacts on collaborative relations and other project aims and accountabilities. This can support researchers practicing responsible innovation in making everyday decisions on how to protect potential IP without disrupting the collaborative relations that make the creation of potential IP possible, and the existence of protected IP relevant and beneficial to project collaborators and wider societal actors. This may help to ensure that societal benefits can be generated, and positive science–society relationships prioritized and preserved, in the design of new AgTech.

Beyond the Grassroots: Two Trajectories of “Citizen Sciencization” in Environmental Governance

Grassroots, bottom-up citizen science is a burgeoning form of public engagement with science, in which citizens mobilize scientific data to address local and global concerns. Contrary to top-down citizen science projects in which citizens collect data for experts, these grassroots initiatives typically unfold in do-it-ourselves fashion, thereby challenging formally-sanctioned, expert-centric citizen science approaches. This article illustrates these points through a comparative analysis of two potentially paradigmatic sites for environmental grassroots citizen science: Safecast (radiation pollution; Japan) and CuriousNoses (air pollution; Flanders, Belgium). These cases are selected on the basis of their anchors in local self-organized communities, with each case initiated by citizens instead of by formal institutions. Adopting a relational account of these sites as being shaped through both top-down and bottom-up imperatives, we draw out key features (defining moments, key actors, discourses, devices) in the constitution of these networks as credible, potentially influential actors in affairs of environmental governance. We introduce the notion of “citizen sciencization” as a way of understanding and exploring these processes against the backdrop of changing science-society relationships in Japan and Europe.

The COVID-19 mirror: reflecting science-society relationships across 11 countries

Twelve researchers from 11 countries used autoethnographic techniques, keeping diaries over 10 weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, to observe and reflect on changes in the role and cultural authority of science during important stages of viral activity and government action in their respective countries. We followed arguments, discussions and ideas generated by mass and social media about science and scientific expertise, observed patterns and shifts in narratives, and made international comparisons. During regular meetings via video conference, the participating researchers discussed theoretical approaches and our joint methodology for reflecting on our observations. This project is informed by social representations theory, agenda-setting, and frames of meaning associated with the rise and fall of expertise and trust. This paper presents our observations and reflections on the role and authority of science in our countries from March 10 to May 31, 2020. This is the first stage of a longer-term project that aims to identify, analyse and compare changes in science-society relationships over the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 2018

This volume has a new editor in Ruth Lehmann. The ‘Introduction’ section in this volume is a retrospective of the previous editor Randy Schekman’s views, particularly on science policy and science–society relationships. The future volumes of the Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology should give insights into Lehmann’s views and style.

Insights from China for a Global Perspective on a Responsible Science–society Relationship

Ensuring that science meets the needs of society and does so responsibly is a key aim of current European policymaking. Under the label of ‘responsible research and innovation’, European Union projects, such as the NUCLEUS project, have been funded to both study and stimulate practices for the development of responsible science–society relationships. The NUCLEUS project aims to define a broader cultural, international and enriched perspective on what a responsible science–society relationship entails. In this paper, findings from a comparative case study in China are presented. Practices are analysed at the conceptual, governmental, institutional and individual levels. Our findings show that social responsibility is the key to the science–society relationship, and that science popularization is a means to enhance scientific literacy.

Technology-transfer offices and academic open labs as different types of organizational intermediaries in science-society relationships

Cet article etudie les caracteristiques des structures de transfert technologique et des laboratoires d’innovation ouverte geres par les universites et organismes de recherche. Il compare leurs roles comme intermediaires des relations science–entreprises en fonction des modes 2 et 3 de production des connaissances proposes par Etzkowitz & al (1997) et Carayannis & al (2009). Basee sur une comparaison de cas multiples en France, nous analysons leur role dans le developpement des relations science-entreprise. Cet article identifie aussi les modes de coordination entre ces deux types d’intermediaires. Dans certains cas, ils coordonnent leurs activites de maniere ponctuelle alors que, dans d’autres cas, la complementarite de leurs activites s’organise sur la duree.

La Vinculación Ciencia-Sociedad: Estereotipos y Nuevos Enfoques

The social relevance of science has evolved significantly since the mid-twentieth century, leading to a change in the approach and development of the scientific activity. In this context, there has been a notable increase of in-depth studies addressing exchange and knowledge transfer processes between researchers and social agents, largely to encourage these processes from the scientific and institutional policies. This paper describes the evolution of the science-society relationships approaches and analyses the main elements of the exchange and knowledge transfer processes though an empirical study of the largest Spanish public research organisation. Results highlight that the dominant view on the relations between science and society is very limited and needs to be revised.

Sipping Science: The Interpretative Flexibility of Science Cafés in Denmark and Japan

Science cafés were originally conceived as an informal, dialogue-based venue for public participation in science. The first science cafés took place in the United Kingdom and France in 1997–98. Two formats—one featuring a single speaker (United Kingdom) and one with a panel of speakers and a moderator (France)—resulted from these first initiatives. Since then, science cafés have been adapted to other sociocultural contexts, and today, science cafés are being conducted in many different countries and for many different purposes. We examine the emergence and development of science cafés in Denmark and Japan with particular focus on the role of science and technology studies (STS), national contexts of science communication policy, and cultures of public participation. We find that in both countries, despite different expectations of public deliberation about science and technology, science cafés have been easily embedded in the “new” scientific governance programs (Irwin 2006). This is mainly due to institutional support in the national research systems and the involvement of STS scholars who, in their support of public participation in science and dialogue-based science communication, have advocated science cafés as a meaningful way to intervene in science-society relationships. “Sipping science” in a science café, enabling public participation in science deliberations, has interpretative flexibility, appealing to a wide variety of people and stakeholders engaged in public communication of science and technology.

We have never been ELSI researchers - there is no need for a post-ELSI shift.

This article criticizes recent suggestions that the current ELSI research field should accommodate a new direction towards a ‘post-ELSI’ agenda. Post-ELSI research seeks to avoid the modernist division of responsibility for technical and social issues said to characterize ELSI research. Collaboration and integration are consequently the key terms of post-ELSI strategies that are to distinguish it from ELSI strategies. We argue that this call for a new direction relies on an inadequate generalized analysis of ELSI research as modern that will affect the construal of post-ELSI strategies. We are concerned that the call for post-ELSI shift will exclude imaginative proposals and intellectual freedom by narrowing down the scope and methodologies of ELSI and thereby missing opportunities to play a critical and constructive normative role. Instead of framing current trends in ELSI research as a radical and progressive shift from ELSI to post-ELSI, we suggest an alternative story of expansion and diversification described in terms of a drift from ELSA 1 to ELSA 2, pertaining to acronyms in use in Europe. ELSI research has never been modern. It has been experimenting from the very start on ways to mesh the works of humanist, social and natural scientist in order to bridge and build alignments of emerging scientific and societal goals and matters of concern. The development from ELSA 1 to ELSA 2 expands in our account the range of intellectual and methodological capacities of analysis and engagement of complex and dynamic science-society relationships. We present three areas of ELSA expertise to illustrate that the expertise within the field builds on scholarly achievements within the humanities, social sciences as well as the natural sciences. The plurality of disciplinary background of ELSA researchers represents a valuable diversity that enables mutual criticism and formulations of complementary approaches that together constitute a viable ELSA field.

When boffins go POP: Eduard Kaeser expects that the bubble of spectacular science may burst

Eduard Kaeser has written an interesting and critical book that is concerned with the connections between science and everyday life. The conception of ‘pop science’ is introduced to characterize developments in science popularisation that are spectacular, superficial and potentially harmful to science-society relationships. The book is of special interest to the science communication community, since it may initiate discussion about the purposes of communicating science, and also about legitimate and illegitimate strategies and means of doing so.

The socialisation of scientific and technological research

In the last decades, production of science and technology as well as science-society relationships started changing rapidly. Research is asked to be more effective, fast, accountable, trans-disciplinary, result-oriented, policy-driven and able to generate benefits for people and firms in the short and middle run. While a strong intensification of science-society relationships is occurring, an increasing number of actors and stakeholders are involved in research production. At the same time, pervasiveness of technology is rendering users an active part in technological development; economic and social interests on science and technology are growing on a global scale; new democratic and ethical issues emerge. Despite the European institutions’ efforts, all those trends and phenomena are occurring in an extremely fragmented way. In this scenario, a fairly balanced and consistent co-evolution between science and society can no longer be taken for granted. This is just the starting point of the following comment section that, through the Luciano d’Andrea, Sally Wyatt, Erik Aarden, Jos Lejten and Peter Sekloča’s writings, aims to analyse the different aspects and questions around the socialisation of science and technology’s matter.

Linking academic and local knowledge: community-based research and service learning for sustainable rural development in Hungary

Discussions about the potential role of academic and research institutions in regional sustainability initiatives (RSIs) inevitably raise the issue of the role of science in society in general. In democratic societies, it can be argued that science–society relationships should be based on establishing and institutionalizing mutual dialogues, making public concerns not only visible but the public as equal partner. In order to fulfil the social responsibilities of academic institutions involved in RSIs through establishing dialogues with diverse stakeholders, a possible methodology is conducting participatory action research (PAR) combined with the educational model of service learning. The PAR project reported here aims at facilitating a bottom-up, micro-region level sustainability planning and development process in one of the most socio-economically disadvantaged rural areas of north-east Hungary. Some of the main results of this university–community partnership were its contribution to sustainability, including the activation of local capabilities and networking across various local stakeholder groups through various small-scale projects and the co-production of a socially grounded and landscape-based rural development plan for the micro-region.

Qualitative Science Policy

Qualitative research struggles against a tide of quantitative methods. To assist in this struggle, it is useful to consider the historical and philosophical origins of quantitative methods as well as criticisms that have been raised against them. Although these criticisms have often been restricted to discussions in the philosophy of science, they have become increasingly prominent in debates regarding science policy. This article thus reviews current science policy debates concerning scientific autonomy and the linear model of science-society relationships. Then, having considered the multiple meanings of quality, it argues for a science policy reassessment of quantitative research, for deeper engagements between science policy and the social sciences, and finally, for a more explicit alliance between science policy and qualitative methods.

Exploring health systems research and its influence on policy processes in low income countries.

BackgroundThe interface between research and policymaking in low-income countries is highly complex. The ability of health systems research to influence policy processes in such settings face numerous challenges. Successful analysis of the research-policy interface in these settings requires understanding of contextual factors as well as key influences on the interface. Future Health Systems (FHS): Innovations for Equity is a consortium conducting research in six countries in Asia and Africa. One of the three cross-country research themes of the consortium is analysis of the relationship between research (evidence) and policy making, especially their impact on the poor; insights gained in the initial conceptual phase of FHS activities can inform the global knowledge pool on this subject.DiscussionThis paper provides a review of the research-policy interface in low-income countries and proposes a conceptual framework, followed by directions for empirical approaches. First, four developmental perspectives are considered: social institutional factors; virtual versus grassroots realities; science-society relationships; and construction of social arrangements. Building on these developmental perspectives three research-policy interface entry points are identified: 1. Recognizing policy as complex processes; 2. Engaging key stakeholders: decision-makers, providers, scientists, and communities; and 3. Enhancing accountability. A conceptual framework with three entry points to the research-policy interface – policy processes; stakeholder interests, values, and power; and accountability – within a context provided by four developmental perspectives is proposed. Potential empirical approaches to the research-policy interface are then reviewed. Finally, the value of such innovative empirical analysis is considered.ConclusionThe purpose of this paper is to provide the background, conceptual framework, and key research directions for empirical activities focused on the research-policy interface in low income settings. The interface can be strengthened through such analysis leading to potential improvements in population health in low-income settings. Health system development cognizant of the myriad factors at the research-policy interface can form the basis for innovative future health systems.

New Directions in the Philosophy of Science

The philosophy of science-the attempt to understand the fundamentals of one of the most significant of human activities-has traditionally treated itself as a branch of the field of epistemology. Justification for this delimitation has relied on two distinctions. One is the difference between the contexts of discovery and of justification. The process of scientific discovery is viewed as a mysterious, non-rational process belonging to the province of psychology. In response, the philosophy of science limited itself to probing the logical procedures of justifying scientific claims. second is the distinction between externalist and internalist features of science. The philosophy of science sets aside the external economic or political factors promoting scientific work in order to focus on those processes internal to scientific research. In recent decades, however, these assumptions have faced two challenges. One challenge originated with arguments for the close, even symbiotic relationship between science and technology, and as a response to the external social problems of technology, from nuclear weapons to biotechnology. In consequence, the philosophy of technology developed as a complement to the philosophy of science, with a particular focus on ethicalpolitical criticism. A second challenge originated with historical and sociological studies of science that revealed important nonepistemological features of its internal processes. Of special importance here are the ethical dimensions of scientific methods, with discussions of the professional ethics of science, and accounts of the material culture of science, where the scientific method is placed within the larger framework of scientific tools, public and private institutions, and governmental funding streams. Bridging the external social impacts of scientific activity and its internal social construction is the less well known but no less important activity of science policy. Science policies are manifest both outside science in public appropriations for the funding of science and regulatory legislation, and inside science with efforts to refine the procedures of peer review or promote the more effective and equitable sharing of data and peer review. Original recognition and analysis of these activities belongs to the social sciences, and to research undertaken by that interdisciplinary field known as science, technology, and society studies. As guest editors of this special issue of Philosophy Today, however, our goal is to promote the emergence-after the philosophy of technology and the professional ethics of science-of a third complement to traditional philosophy of science that focuses on this under-appreciated bridge. Philosophical reflection on science policy will expand our understanding of science, extend the activity of philosophy, and strengthen our grasp of the controversies facing policy professionals. Philosophy of Science Absent Policy To repeat: Complementing science is another, no less significant activity, that of science policy-which is itself simply one aspect of what has been called the "policy orientation" (Lerner and Lasswell, eds., 1951) and the "policy movement" (Brunner, 1991) that promotes the development of systematic, intelligent, and effective public decision making. In a distinction that goes back at least to Harvey Brooks (1968)-and which is not precisely the same as that between external and internal science policy-science policy is commonly divided into "policy for science" and "science for policy." In either case, science policy is distinct from science, in that it attempts to investigate, formulate, and implement guidelines for science-society relationships, so that society promotes the steady advancement of science (policy for science) and science benefits public decision making (science for policy). Like science itself, science policy is thus of considerable societal importance. Remarkably, however, although there exist efforts to advance science policy work itself and to examine it from the perspectives of science, technology, and society studies, there is little in the way of a research program in philosophy attempting to analyze and understand science policy more generally, either in its epistemological or its ethical dimensions. …

CITIZENSHIP, SCIENCE AND RISK

Shifting science-society relationships are highly relevant both to contemporary practices of citizenship and their expression, and to questions around the dynamics of ‘participation’. Just as political and economic changes are altering the contexts, spaces and ways in which people perceive and act on citizenship rights, so too are scientific and technological changes and the new risks and opportunities they present. Scientific and technological issues present particular challenges and opportunities for participation, associated on the one hand with claims to highly specialised, professionalised knowledge and expertise which may serve to exclude. At the same time, recent scientific controversies have also created new demands and opportunities for concerted citizen engagement in decision-making. At least in some contexts there is seen to be a new mood of public cynicism and critique of ‘expert’ institutions and their knowledges, and demands for new sorts of dialogue, and public empowerment in the scientific realm.

Limits of change: cognitive constraints on “postmodernization” and the political redirection of science

The debate about revitalization of the finalization theory was documented in 1997 in Social Science Information. It hinted at a worthwhile methodological idea that could be useful in current debates on science—society relationships. Finalization theory asked whether a field's cognitive state constrains research policy attempts to direct the field toward applications. Since the difficulties faced in answering this question are at least partly due to the level of analysis, this article proposes refocusing finalization theory on the micro-level of research processes and research trails. On the basis of an empirical analysis, the cognitive links between basic research and contexts of applications are explored. Five types of basic research can be distinguished by their various cognitive links to contexts of application. Scientists' opportunities to change the links between their basic research and applications are discussed. Analysis on the micro-level enables conclusions to be drawn about (1) the scope of hypotheses about changes in knowledge-production and (2) constraints on institutional pressure for basic research to contribute to societal welfare.