>
these issues are not about the credibility of
'science' - they are about the credibility of commercial companies and the
technology they wish the public to tolerate.
Let’s not forget that credibility is
not an absolute characteristic. We are speaking of a particular community’s
perception of whether science is, or is not a credible activity. Science is
taking a battering and the public do not see ‘commercial companies who do
science and technology’ as a separate category from ‘science’.
If commercial science hurts a particular group of people, the public holds ‘science’
responsible. Arguing that this is not fair is, in my view, not a solution.
>I
have no problem at all about the USES of science (=technology) being subject to
decision by PR battles.
Technology is much more and much less than
applied science. Gibbons (1992), Vincenti (1990) and
Rosenberg (1994) explain this.
>To
use an analogy, I have no problem with PR battles being used to decide whether
or not to grant planning permission to build a new tower block, but would be
alarmed if they were the means by the credibility of theories of structural
engineering were assessed. I am not an engineer, but I would far rather live in
a building built according to theories tested according to the arcane and
rigorous processes used by engineers than by who could command the best Tabloid
headlines.
Engineers used theories of structural
engineering and ergonomics to design the car air bag. They did not listen to
the PR and marketing people, who would have said, (if they had been asked) that
women drive cars too. Designed around the ergonomics of male test dummies, car air
bags worked exactly as they had been designed to do. But they killed women
drivers at 15mph.
Listening to what the people say, not just
what the engineers say, can give us better technologies. People who work with
the public may give us tabloid headlines, I would
argue that they can potentially lead us to better science, too. After all,
sometimes it is the work that is not being done that is the problem with ‘science’
as a whole.
>I
am afraid that I think that much of the trouble that has come the way of
science is due to people persistently presenting technology (building
factories, nuclear waste facilities etc) as 'science'. The OED defines science
as "systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment" - there is nothing here
about old oil rigs, fields of GM maize or xenotransplants;
Would giving these things a different
label (‘technology’) really help? Or would it just shift the
problem elsewhere ‘I’m alright mate, I do science. Give the funding
cuts to the technologists’.
it
defines technology as "the application of scientific knowledge for
practical purposes"- there is a clear
difference.
Look further than the dictionary! The OED
is wrong. While scientific theory sometimes guides the experimentation process,
the precise design of an experiment, and the mapping of its results into a new
product or process are activities that cannot be deduced from scientific
theory. . . Science, at best, is of only limited assistance in determining the
specificities of technological design. [
Ask an engineer where the 70% comes from
in engineering design with fatigue tests. The reply will not be about theory
but practice.
Besides, the development of new technologies often gives rise to new
scientific theory. How does the OED definition explain that?
>The
second is very properly to be decided by political debate, partly because it
cannot be decided by scientific criteria alone, but the credibility of science,
even to the wider world, can rest soleley on its ability to be the best system
for understanding the natural world.
Even if the science/technology split were
helpful, this statement is missing the question: whose world are we talking
about here?
Science as an activity is deeply embedded
in the systems of this wider world. The work that is done reflects the
interests of the powerful. The work that is not done is not abandoned by ‘scientific
criteria alone’.
When we teach our medical students here, we are very careful to separate the
scientific aspects of what can and cannot be done (decided soleley through
rational consideration, observation and experiment)
This is the same rational consideration
observation and experiment which told my sister that her interest in
engineering was evidence of a hormonal imbalance? The same rational observation
and experiment which led the engineers to use only male test dummies when
designing car air bags?
We must admit that our values do enter
into the evaluation of what we observe and what we do. Else how can we guard
against it?
and the ethical
aspects of what should be done (decided by wider political considerations,
ethics committees, public debate etc). By keeping the issues of science and uses
of science separate, the credibility of science is not damaged by someone
losing an argument about how they want to use it.
Sheldon photographed thousands of Harvard
students to demonstrate that ‘a person’s body, measured an
analysed, could tell much about intelligence, temperament,
moral worth and probable future achievements’. Does this mean that the
biologist’s work only became unethical when the accumulated data is used?
>Mathematics has
managed to avoid these problems quite well. As far as I know, no pressure
groups are "anti-maths" no matter how much their members may have
hated the subject in school.
Marcus du Sautoy says that people resisted imaginary numbers for 200
years before accepting them.
This may be because
nobody keeps encouraging them to confuse mathematics with the decision to use a
mathematical principle to build a missile or an artificial heart.
He argues that Mathematicians and
non-mathematicians resisted imaginary numbers because they could not exist, and
that the political environment of the French Revolution created the social
conditions that were necessary for this 200 year-old resistance to be overcome.
Alternatively one might say that political decisions encouraged people to be
confused enough to accept imaginary numbers. A stroke of luck for
mathematicians, signal theory and microelectronics. .
. !
|
|
|
>I have great
respect for CB - but that debate was not about the credibilty of science, it
was about whether scientists should have a legal right to experiment on
animals.
One might also argue that it was a debate
about values which required scientific knowledge – about whether the injury
caused by animal testing was worth the gains produced by research. Only when
public scientists stood up and said ’these are the benefits’ could
this debate happen, because only scientists could say what the benefits were. No
Blakemore, no dialogue.
Until Colin stood up, this debate did
affect the public’s perception of the credibility of science. Until then,
many people thought that scientists were people who did unnecessary animal
experiments, and science was the activity which legitimised that. Because this
was all they knew, because science kept itself to itself and appeared to like
it that way.
>As
you will have gathered, I fear that the conjunction of the S and T in
I’m not convinced that we solve
anything by calling everything controversial a technology. But we could change
a great deal if we were to think differently about who we are.
At the moment, we see scientists as being
in possession of knowledge, and ordinary people as people who need to be
educated (PUS), talked with (
By involving ordinary people in science
and technology, we help ordinary scientists benefit from lay expertise. If we
are designing an integrated transport system, we need the expertise of mothers
and schoolchildren, the partially sighted and the commuter to make it work. We
call this user-driven innovation.
Involving excluded communities in less ‘applied’
research might also bring benefits, as public involvement in basic research
could influence the kind of work that is not being done. Take Helen O’Connell’s
1998 paper on female anatomy, for example. This was a research finding that
could and should have been made many, many decades earlier.
If I were the top bod in a Research
Council, I would bang on about what I say in my research, which is that public
involvement both influences - and is influenced by - the impact of science and
technology on different communities in the UK (and world-wide). Systems of
innovation both mediate, and are mediated.
If we want the public to support our work, we need to:
- fund completely independent (‘no strings’) research
- fund scientists to do public engagement work,
- support science-media links
- involve people in S&T decision making (yes that includes
policy too).
We might have to change a few things along the way. But if the
alternative is dwindling support and continuing
distrust, would that be so terrible?
Best wishes
Jenny Gristock