"Is science a product of culture or apart from culture? Can science be objective and neutral when people are not?"
"The peculiar thing is that American heroes aren't often very good at science. Indeed, in much popular culture, it's only the villains who're conversant with Maxwell or Einstein." ~ Seth Shostak
"After all, anyone who has studied the history of technology knows that technological change is always a Faustian bargain: Technology giveth and technology taketh away and not always in equal measure. A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided." ~ Neil Postman
"Science is not a well-bounded coherent thing, capable of being more or less 'understood." ... Scientists themselves do not have a clear and consistent notion of what 'science' covers and often disagree profoundly on what it is telling us about the world." ~John Ziman
"...There's virtually no such thing as a purely technological question. Virtually all technology questions are also social and psychological, economic and ecological, political and personal, religious and spiritual. Technology is about know-how. But it's the know-why that counts." James J. Farrell
"At one time, every shopkeeper, every farmer, every manufacturer was thinking about how things work, and how to make them better. They were thinking like scientists. Today our society is not illuminated by a scientific way of thinking. We are not asking questions in a way such that they can be answered empirically and verifiably." ~ Rush Holt
"We also underestimate the importance of 'older' technologies in the past -- that is, those invented before a particular era, but still in use in that era. So when we think of German technology during the second world war, we think of V-2 rockets, yet the horse was much more significant in military terms: the Wehrmacht marched to Moscow with more horses than Napoleon's Great Army." ~ David Edgerton
"The concept of 'decisions based on sound science' is predicated upon the presumptions that science is a neutral body of knowledge immune from value judgments, science can predict with certainty and clarity what will happen in the physical world, and policy making is a rational process. None of these is true." ~ Herman Karl, Lawrence Susskind and Katherine Wallace
Although relatively new [launched by Robert K. Merton],
this aspect of sociology deals with five important topics:
If you were interested in the sociology of science what topic
would you study?
While there are many accounts, especially in the past, of the isolated scientists working alone in a small laboratory or in the field, contemporary science is very much a social activity. This is especially true of "big science" with large laboratories and a caste system of those who work in science from clerks and secretaries to undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-docs as well as lab assistants and technicians. As science has become increasingly global, the invisible college may have members in many different places.
Science is organized into academic disciplines and professions so that there are a series of social relationships with some personal and others institutional or academic. For example, scientists have academic relationships based upon their undergraduate and graduate experiences. As members of an invisible college, they also have relationships with members of discipline and sub-discipline scholarly societies. They certainly have relationships with those at their work site and those related to funding agencies. The increasing fragmentation of scientific and technical research may place research in isolated silos so that there is not a community of chemists, but a variety of specialists who share and communicate with those who have similar interests.
While science is intended to be objective and free from bias,
scientists are human. Those who fund science have strong beliefs and
priorities as well. Science has been and continues to be dominated by
white males and that may have some impact on what is researched and how
the research is conducted.
Until quite recently, science was almost exclusively a male only
profession. Even today, the number of female scientists able to secure
productive, continuing research positions is quite small. There is
considerable anecdotal evidence that mainstream science is not friendly
to the female scientist. It's unclear if the research agenda of female
researchers would differ from that of males, but there is some evidence
in medicine than male physicians do not see the same solutions and
problems as many female physicians.
While opinion surveys find that scientists are seen as dedicated and
productive, they are also seen as isolated and antisocial [perhaps
tethered to the lab].
It should also be noted that it is increasingly difficult for many
who were educated and trained as scientists to find an appropriate
position and to secure the funding that allows a research agenda to be
implemented. There is a great deal of competition for positions and for
funding and impacts the "community" of science.
To what degree can a scientist be objective and free from bias?
For many years, the history of science was the
history of specific individuals [the Great Men, the "geniuses and
heroes"] who were able to make
notable discoveries and move science forward. More recently, the notion
that science moved forward with change in culture, values, technology,
and way of
life has become popular. This suggests that if a particular scientist
had not discovered X, someone else would have done so.
Because of this, priority disputes and challenges are quite common.
Thus,
society creates certain preconditions that stimulate and allow
scientific change.
Technology certainly plays an important role since improved
instrumentation and communication creates new opportunities.
Scientific change is also seen in many predictions,
some of these are sensationalism and simplistic. Consider those
predictions that find their way in Popular
Science or Popular
Mechanics that we would soon commute to work in our personal
aeroplane. or that we would commute to the city in automatic transports
in tubes. While many predictions prove false, other developments,
relatively unheralded, arrive and have considerable impact.
How might predictions influence lay opinions of STM?
Case Western Reserve University hosts an excellent website devoted to ethics
for engineering and science. The National Academy of Sciences provides
an excellent pamphlet, On Being A Scientist:
Responsible Conduct in Research.
Even a quick review of the literature on science and scientists reveals that there are certain fundamental beliefs about the nature of the physical or natural world:
Scientists are familiar with and understand ethical principles. For example:
Scientific misconduct has received increasing attention in the last
few years. Questions about the ability of the scientific community to
find, evaluate, and take action against misconduct have been asked for
many years. The fact that so few studies are replicated has been a
problem for years. There are other issues too. Science is very
hierarchical and post docs, assistants, and others are not likely to
question or report a senior scientist.
With government funding, a variety of laws, rules, standards, and
regulations come into play. Congressional investigations may be used as
well to insure that the government receives "fair value" for its money.
Critics note that the research environment is increasingly competitive
and that "junior researchers do the drudge work for senior scientists
rushing to publish articles before their academic rivals."
Editors and peer-reviewers are concerned and some require that more
data/evidence accompany research articles to provide reviewers with
more opportunity to validate questions that they might have.
Likely that misconduct is a genuinely serious problem or just a
case of a few?
Many consumer problems and issues are science issues [includes
technology and medicine]. Teens and adults need to know how to evaluate
scientific claims if they are to make reasonable decisions about
choices that immediately impact the quality of their life. For example,
when should herbal extracts be taken to prevent or resolve a health
problem? Do cell phones cause dangerous side affects?
Opinion studies report that most adults [typically more than seventy
percent] believe that the benefits of science outweigh the liabilities.
At the same time, many believe that astrology is scientific and than
humans did not evolve from an earlier species. The controversy about
intelligent design focuses on what it means to be scientific and the
definition of "theory."
Even though most adults have had some exposure to science in school,
their scientific
literacy is low. Science textbooks for K12 and undergraduate
students cover many topics shallowly and do not engage students. Adult
knowledge and understanding of
science is often based on bits and pieces found here and there in the
mass media and via hearsay.
Much of what people hear is contrary and creates
incoherence. For example, at one time we are told that a particular
food is good for us and then another study finds the opposite. The
popularity of "urban legends" has its counterparts in STM content. For
example, in the United States, a relatively large number of adults do
not believe that man really landed on the moon. Consider the continuing
controversy about fluorinated water. As Alan Leshner says, "the biggest
gap that adults have in their scientific knowledge is not that they've
forgotten the details of DNA; it's rather that they don't know what
science is about."
Although the scientific community has many experts, ordinary people
do not automatically accept research findings from experts they go
against a
strong personal feeling. Many still believe that cigarette smoking is
not really harmful.
While many adults, and teens, say that they are interested in
science when responding to polls, there seems to be little linkage
between interest and understanding. It is interesting that surveys find
that "males show significantly higher levels of knowledge, interest,
and positive attitudes toward science than females do."
If males are much more interested in science than females, so
what? So what for a pink collar profession such as librarianship?
With the publication and vigorous debate of Darwin's work on
evolution, science and religion seem to suggest two quite different
ways of explaining the nature of the world that we live in. Some
argue that this is a one or the other debate such that one can not be a
"real" scientist and believe in religion and God. For example, do you
believe in evidence or blind faith? Since the United States is a
country with a substantially religious population, this creates a
variety of problems for the scientific community.
There has always been some tension between religious beliefs,
whether they are faith based or based upon governmental authority, and
science. Survey results showing that a large number of U.S. adults
believe that the book of Genesis accurately describes the creation of
the universe and the planet earth provides some evidence that for many
faith trumps science.
However, there is more at work here than religion. What some call
"folk science" matches well with ordinary perceptions of the natural
world. As Michael Shermer says, "folk astronomy ... told us that the
world is flat, celestial bodies revolve around the earth, and the
planets are wandering gods who determine our future." While the latter
may seem unreasonable today, the world does look flat. Shermer
continues:
"The reason folk science so often gets it wrong is that we evolved in an environment radically different from the one in which we now live. Our senses are geared for perceiving objects of middling size--between, say, ants and mountains--not bacteria, molecules and atoms on one end of the scale and stars and galaxies on the other end. We live a scant three score and ten years, far too short a time to witness evolution, continental drift or long-term environmental changes."
There is no question that science challenges society in many ways.
For example, is it reasonable to allow the creation of "designed"
children with certain physical attributes? Is it reasonable to require
parents to submit ill children to medical procedures when they would
rather rely on prayer?
The inclusion of evolution in the science curriculum in K12 schools
has and continues to have considerable public opposition, particularly
from those who believe that evolution cannot be true because it
disagrees with the Biblical account of creation. Opponents of evolution
instruction would prefer that it not be taught at all, but if it must
be taught it should be taught as one explanation with creationism or
intelligent design as alternatives. Biology teachers and nearly all of
the scientific community argue strongly that creationism and
intelligent design are religious and matters of faith and have no place
in the biology classroom.
Since school board members, both local and on the state board
of education, are elected politics quickly becomes involved. Often the
debate focuses on the notion that a theory is not evidence based but is
a supposition or hypothesis [the contrary is true]. In a 2005, opinion
poll 55 percent of Americans want alternatives to evolution taught
[often because of the equal time for alternative "theories"].
Inevitably, the person or the agency with the money is able to
decide how that money will be used. This means that who funds STM
research makes the genuinely important decisions rather than the person
who actually does the research. This means that research priorities are
often not established by the researcher. In fact, researchers alter
their priorities to match those of funders.
Funding also brings with it various accountability requirements.
These too may change the nature of science. Since funding is available
for short periods [often three years], the researcher finds herself
continually concerned with funding and administrative issues. Again,
this may change the nature of science in fundamental ways.
While amateur scientists may need little funding and little
protection from others in the community, some scientists in the past
had patrons who assisted with funding and provided some protection from
those who might disagree with the nature of the research or the
research results. Today, political support is primarily a funding issue
rather than protection from burning at the stake.
Science has long created problems for the status quo and those who
benefit from society without change. Einstein was attacked by many
Germans in the scientific community for practicing "Jewish science." He
was also attacked by Communists for practicing "bourgeois science."
The use of expert witnesses in trials has created several problems
and some backlash. Scientific evidence plays an important role in some
trials with scientists as expert witnesses testifying on both sides of
an issue. What are we to believe when experts substantially disagree
when examining the same evidence?
Certainly, the best case for the entanglement of science and
politics is the relationship between climate change, global warming in
particular, and the federal government in the U.S. Republican senators
have attacked scientists whose research supported human causation for
global warming and the executive branch has edited, delayed, and
otherwise inhibited government scientists from sharing global warming
research results. Some see scientists as "liberals" conducting "junk
science." Others see government leaders caught in the web of big
business and campaign contributors. There is no question that the cost
of intervention to slow climate change is and would be substantial.
There would be many
"losers" and some "winners." Many questions have been raised about what
constitutes "sound science."
How would you define "sound science"? "Junk science"?
Many doubt that science can be divorced from politics. At the same
time, science by its nature is falsifiable so that even mainstream
research might not be supported at some time in the future. At the same
time, there may be several supported perspectives on any natural event.
Science and popular
culture appear in a variety of places on the
web. The Science and Popular Culture
website is an interesting place to begin. Science, technology, and
medicine appear in many different ways and roles in popular culture,
with some emphasis on how they and the individuals associated with them
are portrayed on TV, on film, and elsewhere in the popular media. Many
stereotypes and some urban legends are created and maintained. Much of
the notion of science found in people's heads is the result of
interaction with images and stories found in pop culture.
Consider the images you have seen of STM in popular culture.
How would you characterize those images?
While some science fiction paints negative pictures of a future
devastated by science, much of it shows astounding, amazing futures and
promotes science in many ways. Most science fiction authors are careful about their
science. Here is another good
conversation on this topic. Here is a website devoted to the
bad science in science fiction.
While the information is mostly anecdotal, some evidence suggests
that SF novels and stories have encourage young men to become
scientists.
Are science fiction stories a recruiting and public relations
plus for STM?
One image, frequently seen in film is the mad scientist who has
considerable ability to do some truly terrible unless he [almost always
a he] is stopped. This certainly fits well with the notion that science
can unleash terrible powers that devastate ordinary humans. Frankenstein is a
well-known image of science run amuck. In fact, those opposed to
genetically modified food crops call them "frankenfoods."
Does the "mad scientist" image have an impact on science? Does
anyone take this stereotype seriously?
Conservative or "normal science" science fits
well with the status quo, with current methods, instrumentation, and
popular topics. Radical or "revolutionary" science,
on the contrary, upsets the apple
cart with new theories based upon new assumptions, and new perspectives
that threaten the status quo. The Copernican
Revolution is a good example of that or Einstein's
Relativity. Radical science is not well accepted and the "peers" are
likely to find it wanting and strange. The"revolutionaries" of radical
science may eventually win out, but the road is likely to be difficult
and the battle fierce.
How likely is it that radical science would be published in a
well-regarded journal?
Although the evidence is not as clear as we might like, it does seem
reasonably clear that new science and new technology favors some groups
while disadvantaging others. Thus, science creates winners and losers.
Consider, for example, 24/7 connectivity that allows the employee to
always stay in touch with work or digital technology that allows one
person to share content with thousands of others.
Who are the "losers" impacted by contemporary science?
Science, technology, and medicine inevitably have unintended
consequences. Lead in paint is not good for human health.
Can you identify other unintended consequences of scientific
research and development?
In particular, the environmental movement has been critical of
science and technology, particularly its impact on the natural world.
STM is seen by many as "poisoning the planet." Industrial agriculture
is seen as victimizing animals and humans while producing food that may
be harmful to life and limb.
There are questions about the independence of science versus the
degree to which science, and technology, are simply tools for those who
control the economy and the government. The dependence of scientists on
external funding raises many questions about the independence of
scientists from social, economic,and political pressure.
Science in the courtroom may appear to be quite specialized and
narrow but it has the potential to create negatives for the perception
of science in the ordinary world. In some cases, both plaintiff and
defense lawyers in criminal and civil trials hire scientific experts
"with impressive-sounding credentials" who argue diametrically opposed
opinions on some matter of fact. The results suggest to those present
that science is unsettled and that "scientific" evidence may be
unreliable.
From the beginning, technology and science have been used to create
more destructive and threatening weapons. Poison gas in WW I and
nuclear weapons inn WW II clearly demonstrated that science could be
used for ill ends. "Mad, bad" science is seen in a variety of products,
including genetically modified foodstuffs and even genetic engineering
of humans.
Millions of animals are used each year in laboratories to test for
side affects in a variety of products and procedures. Some animals
suffer mental or physical pain as a result. While many are
uncomfortable with animal testing, and many corporations have
substantially reduced it, some animal rights groups want to ban any
research using animals. Animal rights organizations such as PETA use a
variety of protest tactics to make animal testing more visible. Some
have vandalized laboratories, intimidated individual scientists,
"liberated" animals from labs, and even destroyed laboratories and lab
equipment. Some believe that animals have "inherent legal and human
rights." Most adults accept that some animal testing is necessary and
unavoidable, but are certainly focused on humane treatment.
Since many Americans have animals as pets who are member of the
family, this is heart-felt and difficult issue. Animal testing is
sometimes the only way to discover side affects that might be harmful
to humans. Still, most feel at least somewhat uncomfortable with it.
How would you respond to those who wish to cease animal testing?
