The Rightful Place of Science: Politics

3.8/5 ( ratings)

From editor’s introduction by G. Pascal Zachary, author of Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the America Century:

“In this volume, we gather a collection of thinkers who insist there is much to gain from trying to comprehend the politics of technological change and, its close cousin, the practice of science and scientific research. The authors are part of an intellectual and ethical movement to view science and technology neither as objects of worship nor mere scholarly analysis. The authors also wish to improve on the politics of science and to judge their reforms by a pragmatic measure” by the quality of the outcomes of science and technology.”

“To these authors, how we talk about technological change matters, because policies ultimately express deeper vernacular yearnings – for democracy, equity and of course utility. In these essays, hard questions get asked, new perspectives are presented and contrarian understandings abound.”

From chapter one, “the Power and Persistence of the Politics of Science, by Michael Crow and Daniel Sarewitz:

“the idea that the advance of knowledge and innovation can be understood separately from the political, institutional cultural and economic contexts within which science and technology are advanced is nonsense.”

From chapter four, “Democratizing Science,” by David Guston:

“Science is deeply political and always will be. Asking whether science is politicized – or can be depoliticized – distracts us from asking, ‘Who benefits and loses from which forms of politicization?” and “What are the appropriate institutional channels for political discourse, influence, and action in science?” Arguing over whether science is politicized neglects the more critical question, “is science democratized?”

From chapter seven, “In Defense of the Social Contract,” by Robert Frodeman and Carl Mitcham:

“Science policy discussions emphasizing social contract language exclude a large segment of the scientific community not funded by government. Questions focusing on the common good will include concerns of a far larger constituency. For instance, shouldn’t we be asking questions about the goodness of human cloning, not simply whether the tax dollars of those who oppose human cloning should be used to fund it?”

From chapter eight, on “the rightful place of science,” by Daniel Sarewitz:

“The idea that there is a path beyond politics, one that is paved with ‘facts, not ideology,’ is false – indeed, itself a political distortion – so long as significant numbers of people see human embryos as more than just a commodifiable clump of molecules. Moreover. There is nothing at all anti-science about restricting the pursuit of scientific knowledge on the basis of moral concerns.”