Toward a Philosophy of Science Policy

Toward a Philosophy of Science Policy: 

Ap proaches and Is sues 

Ed ited by 

Rob ert Frodeman, Uni ver sity of West Texas 

Carl Mit cham, Col o rado School of Mines

❒ Ed i tor: 

Da vid Pellauer 

PHI LOS O PHY TO DAY 

❒ Ed i to rial As sis tant: 

❒ Mail ing Ad dress: 

Phi los o phy To day 

DePaul University 

2352 North Clifton Ave 

Chi cago, Il li nois 60614 

United States of Amer ica 

❒ Telephone: 

773-325-7267 

❒ Fax: 

773-325-7268 

❒ Email: 

phltoday@con dor.depaul.edu 

A quar terly sur vey of trends and re search in con tem po rary phi los o phy di rected to the in ter est of 

schol ars and teach ers within the Chris tian tra di tion. 

Philosophy Today is a publication of the Philosophy Department of DePaul University 

Subscriptions: United States All Other Coun tries 

One Year $34.00 $ 43.00 

Two Years $68.00 $ 82.00 

Three Years $101.00 $121.00 

Regular Back Issues $ 7.00 $ 8.00 

SPEP Back Is sues $11.00 $ 13.00 

Send sub scrip tion pay ment, in United States dol lars, to mail ing ad dress given above. 

Credit card pay ments can be made us ing Visa or Mastercard 

Manu script Sub mis sion: Send two cop ies of your manu script suit able for blind re view to 

mail ing ad dress given above. We fol low the Uni ver sity of Chi cago Man ual of Style.

■Ta ble of Con tents 

New Di men sions in the Phi los o phy of Sci ence: 

To ward a Phi los o phy of Sci ence Pol icy. .................... ....... 3 

Rob ert Frodeman and Carl Mitcham 

Re search, De vel op ment, and In no va tion in Extremadura: 

A Gnu/Linex Case Study ......... ................................ 15 

Andoni Alsonso, Luis Cosas, Carlos Cas tro, and Fernando Solís 

Sci ence, De moc racy and Stem Cells. ............................. 21 

Eric Cohen 

The Pol icy Sci ences, Sci ence Pol icy, and the De vel op ment of 

Hu man i ties Pol icy ..................................... ....... 28 

Rob ert Frodeman, Adam Briggle, Erik Fisher, and Shep Ryan 

Sci ence in a Real-World Con text: Con struct ing Knowledge 

Through Re cur sive Learing ..................................... 36 

Matthias Gross and Wolfgang Krohn 

On the Au ton omy of the Sci ences ................. .............. 49 

Philip Kitcher 

Sci ence and Anti-Ter ror ism: Notes for an In ter dis ci plin ary 

As sess ment of a New Pol icy Justification for Sci ence 

and En gi neer ing Ed u ca tion ..................................... 56 

Juan Lucena 

Sci ence Pol icy in its So cial Con text ............................... 65 

Dan iel Sarewitz, Suillermo Foladori, Noela Inverinzza, and Michele S. Garfinkel 

Rel e vant But No Pre scrip tive: Sci ence Pol icy Mod els in the IPCC ....... 78 

Alison Shaw and John Rob in son 

■ Vol ume 48 Num ber 5/5 SUPPLEMENT 2004 

1

Mod els of Pan ther Bi ol ogy and Radiobiology: 

Phi los o phy as Sci en tific Cit i zen ship. .............................. 84 

Kristin Shrader-Frechette 

Sci ence Pol icy ofr In dia: A Memo to The In dian 

Coun cil for Sci en tific Re search .................................. 91 

Uday T. Turaga and Rama Mohana Turaga 

Toward a Po lit i cal Phi los o phy of Sci ence. .......................... 106 

Ambrosio Belasco Gómez 

Notes on Con tri bu tors ......................................... 118 

2

NEW DI MEN SIONS IN THE PHI LOS O PHY OF SCI ENCE 

TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE POLICY 

Carl Mit cham and Rob ert Frodeman 

The phi los o phy of sci ence—the at tempt to 

un der stand the fun da men tals of one of the 

most sig nif i cant of hu man ac tiv i ties—has tra - 

di tion ally treated it self as a branch of the field 

of epis te mol ogy. Jus ti fi ca tion for this de lim i - 

ta tion has re lied on two dis tinc tions. One is the 

dif fer ence be tween the con texts of dis cov ery 

and of jus ti fi ca tion. The pro cess of sci en tific 

dis cov ery is viewed as a mys te ri ous, non-ra tio - 

nal pro cess be long ing to the prov ince of psy - 

chol ogy. In re sponse, the phi los o phy of sci - 

ence lim ited it self to prob ing the log i cal 

pro ce dures of jus ti fy ing sci en tific claims. Sec - 

ond is the dis tinc tion be tween externalist and 

internalist fea tures of sci ence. The phi los o phy 

of sci ence sets aside the ex ter nal eco nomic or 

po lit i cal fac tors pro mot ing sci en tific work in 

or der to fo cus on those pro cesses in ter nal to 

sci en tific re search. 

In re cent de cades, how ever, these as sump - 

tions have faced two chal lenges. One chal - 

lenge orig i nated with ar gu ments for the close, 

even sym bi otic re la tion ship be tween sci ence 

and tech nol ogy, and as a re sponse to the ex ter - 

nal so cial prob lems of tech nol ogy, from nu - 

clear weap ons to bio tech nol ogy. In con se - 

quence, the phi los o phy of tech nol ogy 

de vel oped as a com ple ment to the phi los o phy 

of sci ence, with a par tic u lar fo cus on eth i calpo 

lit i cal crit i cism. A sec ond chal lenge orig i - 

nated with his tor i cal and so cio log i cal stud ies 

of sci ence that re vealed im por tant nonepistemological 

fea tures of its in ter nal pro - 

cesses. Of spe cial im por tance here are the eth i - 

cal di men sions of sci en tific meth ods, with dis - 

cus sions of the pro fes sional eth ics of sci ence, 

and ac counts of the ma te rial cul ture of sci ence, 

where the sci en tific method is placed within 

the larger frame work of sci en tific tools, pub lic 

and pri vate in sti tu tions, and gov ern men tal 

fund ing streams. 

Bridg ing the ex ter nal so cial im pacts of sci - 

en tific ac tiv ity and its in ter nal so cial con struc - 

tion is the less well known but no less im por - 

tant ac tiv ity of sci ence pol icy. Sci ence pol i cies 

are man i fest both out side sci ence in pub lic ap - 

pro pri a tions for the fund ing of sci ence and reg - 

u la tory leg is la tion, and in side sci ence with ef - 

forts to re fine the pro ce dures of peer re view or 

pro mote the more ef fec tive and eq ui ta ble shar - 

ing of data and peer re view. Orig i nal rec og ni - 

tion and anal y sis of these ac tiv i ties be longs to 

the so cial sci ence, and to re search un der taken 

by that in ter dis ci plin ary field known as sci - 

ence, tech nol ogy, and so ci ety stud ies. As guest 

ed i tors of this spe cial is sue of Phi los o phy To - 

day, how ever, our goal is to pro mote the emer - 

gence—af ter the phi los o phy of tech nol ogy 

and the pro fes sional eth ics of sci ence—of a 

third com ple ment to tra di tional phi los o phy of 

sci ence that fo cuses on this un der-ap pre ci ated 

bridge. Philo soph i cal re flec tion on sci ence 

pol icy will ex pand our un der stand ing of sci - 

ence, ex tend the ac tiv ity of phi los o phy, and 

strengthen our grasp of the con tro ver sies fac - 

ing pol icy pro fes sion als. 

Philosophy of Science Absent Policy 

To re peat: Com ple ment ing sci ence is an - 

other, no less sig nif i cant ac tiv ity, that of sci - 

ence pol icy—which is it self sim ply one as pect 

of what has been called the “pol icy ori en ta - 

tion” (Lerner and Lasswell, eds., 1951) and the 

“pol icy move ment” (Brun ner, 1991) that pro - 

motes the de vel op ment of sys tem atic, in tel li - 

gent, and ef fec tive pub lic de ci sion mak ing. In 

a dis tinc tion that goes back at least to Harvey 

Brooks (1968)—and which is not pre cisely the 

same as that be tween ex ter nal and in ter nal sci - 

ence pol icy—sci ence pol icy is com monly di - 

vided into “pol icy for sci ence” and “sci ence 

for pol icy.” In ei ther case, sci ence pol icy is dis - 

tinct from sci ence, in that it at tempts to in ves ti - 

gate, for mu late, and im ple ment guide lines for 

sci ence-so ci ety re la tion ships, so that so ci ety 

pro motes the steady ad vance ment of sci ence 

(pol icy for sci ence) and sci ence ben e fits pub lic 

de ci sion mak ing (sci ence for pol icy). Like sci - 

ence it self, sci ence pol icy is thus of con sid er - 

able so ci etal im por tance. Re mark ably, how - 

ever, al though there ex ist ef forts to ad vance 

sci ence pol icy work it self and to ex am ine it 

from the per spec tives of sci ence, tech nol ogy, 

and so ci ety stud ies, there is lit tle in the way of 

a re search pro gram in phi los o phy at tempt ing 

PHILOSOPHY TODAY SUPPLEMENT 2004 

3

to an a lyze and un der stand sci ence pol icy more 

gen er ally, ei ther in its epistemological or its 

eth i cal di men sions. 

The ab sence of any phi los o phy of sci ence 

pol icy in the phi los o phy of sci ence is eas ily 

doc u mented. Con sider, for in stance, two of the 

most rep re sen ta tive text book read ers: E. D. 

Klemke, Rob ert Hollinger, and A. Da vid 

Kline, eds., In tro duc tory Read ings in the Phi - 

los o phy of Sci ence (1988); and Mar tin Curd 

and J. A. Cover, eds. Phi los o phy of Sci ence: 

The Cen tral Is sues (1998). Klemke et al. col - 

lects ar ti cles deal ing with the de mar ca tion 

prob lem, the cov er ing law model of ex pla na - 

tion, re la tions be tween the ory and ob ser va - 

tion, con fir ma tion and ac cep tance, and two 

short sec tions on sci ence and val ues (how sci - 

ence rests on dis tinc tive val ues) and sci ence 

and cul ture (how sci ence is its own way of 

life). The Curd and Cover book like wise in - 

cludes ar ti cles on the re la tion be tween sci ence 

and non-sci ence, sci en tific ra tio nal ity, the ory 

and ob ser va tion, in duc tion, con fir ma tion, ex - 

pla na tion, laws, reductionism, and em pir i - 

cism. Nei ther text even so much as men tions 

the phe nom e non of sci ence pol icy or the role 

of sci ence in pub lic de ci sion mak ing. 

Con sider as well an in flu en tial sys tem atic 

text book authored by nine mem bers of the De - 

part ment of the His tory and Phi los o phy of Sci - 

ence at the Uni ver sity of Pitts burgh, a lead ing 

phi los o phy of sci ence pro gram in the United 

States: Merrilee H. Salmon et al., In tro duc tion 

to the Phi los o phy of Sci ence (1992). Part one 

iden ti fies four gen eral top ics in the phi los o phy 

of sci ence: ex pla na tion, con fir ma tion, re al ism, 

and sci en tific change. Parts two, three, and 

four pro vide brief over views of phi los o phies 

of the phys i cal sci ences, of bi ol ogy and med i - 

cine, and of the be hav ioral and so cial sci ences, 

re spec tively. Even in re la tion to med i cine and 

the so cial sci ences, both sci ence pol icy and the 

pol icy sci ences are con spic u ous by their ab - 

sence. 

In other ar eas of phi los o phy where it might 

be ex pected, sci ence pol icy is equally ab sent. 

For in stance, there is no ar ti cle on pol icy in 

gen eral or sci ence pol icy spe cif i cally in Ruth 

Chadwick, ed., En cy clo pe dia of Ap plied Eth - 

ics (1998) or ei ther of the two gen eral en cy clo - 

pe dias of phi los o phy: Paul Ed wards, ed., En - 

cy clo pe dia of Phi los o phy (1968) with Don ald 

M. Borchert, ed., Sup ple ment (1996); and Ed - 

ward Craig, ed., Routledge En cy clo pe dia of 

Phi los o phy (1998). In fact, the term “sci ence 

pol icy” is not even in the in dex of ei ther of 

these three ma jor phi los o phy ref er ence tools. 

Fi nally, con sult ing The Phi los o pher’s In dex 

(1940–2004) yields no books or ar ti cles with 

“phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy” in their ti tles, 

and only a small num ber of hits us ing “sci ence 

pol icy” alone. Among im por tant books in this 

cat e gory is Kristin Shrader-Frechette’s Sci - 

ence Pol icy, Eth ics, and Eco nomic Meth od ol - 

ogy (1984), per haps the first philo soph i cal 

anal y sis to iden tify and link the eth i cal and 

epistemological is sues em bed ded in sci ence 

pol icy; and Philip Kitcher’s Sci ence, Truth, 

and De moc racy (2001), the first book that 

might rea son ably claim “to ward a phi los o phy 

of sci ence pol icy” as a sub ti tle. Even the jour - 

nal Phi los o phy and Pub lic Af fairs (1971–pres - 

ent) largely lim its it self to philo soph i cal in ter - 

ven tions in or con tri bu tions to par tic u lar 

pol icy is sues (such as nu clear de ter rence, 

health care, wel fare re form, or crim i nal pun - 

ish ment, but sel dom to the use or gov er nance 

of sci ence), and only rarely (as with Law rence 

Tribe, 1972) or in di rectly re flects on pol icy 

mak ing as it self a spe cial form of hu man ac - 

tion. Among the less than twenty pub li ca tions 

iden ti fied by a search for “phi los o phy of pol - 

icy” in gen eral, Sid ney Hook’s Phi los o phy and 

Pub lic Pol icy (1980) stands out as rep re sen ta - 

tive of this is sues-fo cused ap proach. 

Science Policy absent Philosophy 

The other place one might ex pect to find 

phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy is, of course, in 

sci ence pol icy work. Re mark ably, how ever, 

not only is there no sus tained philo soph i cal re - 

flec tion in sci ence pol icy, there is even pre - 

cious lit tle by way of philo soph i cal anal y sis of 

pol icy tout court. Al though pol i cies may be 

de scribed as spe cial types of ac tion, these 

forms of be hav ior have not been ac corded any 

at ten tion in the phi los o phy of ac tion. 

Pol i cies are both ac tions and com mit ments 

to courses of ac tion—de ci sions, not so much 

about spe cific acts as of types of acts, com - 

monly of a pub lic char ac ter. The study of pol - 

icy for ma tion and im ple men ta tion as a dis tinct 

in tel lec tual tra di tion dates only to the post- 

World War II era (Dunn, 1994) and ex cludes. 

A lead ing fig ure of the early pol icy move ment 

was Har old Lasswell, who with his col leagues 

fos tered de vel op ment of what he termed the 

“pol icy sci ences” (Lerner and Lasswell, eds., 

1951). Pol icy work and re search has, how ever, 

PHILOSOPHY TODAY 

4

since come to en com pass di verse in tel lec tual 

tra di tions, from pol icy stud ies (Nagel, 1994) 

and pol icy anal y sis (Stokey and Zeckhauser, 

1978) to socio-eco nom ics (Halal and Tay lor, 

1999) and sci ence, tech nol ogy, and pub lic pol - 

icy (Lambright, 1998). Al though Lasswell 

him self held out a role for phi los o phy in the 

prag ma tist tra di tion (along side po lit i cal sci - 

ence, so ci ol ogy, eco nom ics, psy chol ogy, and 

more), this has gone largely un re al ized, ex cept 

for mod est con tri bu tions made by philo soph i - 

cal anal y ses of the eth i cal di men sions of spe - 

cific pol icy is sues such as, e.g., nu clear de ter - 

rence, abor tion, and en vi ron ment pol lu tion, 

mostly re lated to what has be come known as 

ap plied ethics. 

A slightly more ex tended as sess ment of the 

pol icy stud ies tra di tion re in forces per cep tions 

of the lim ited role played by phi los o phy. In 

what re mains a use ful over view of the pol icy 

stud ies field, Stu art S. Nagel’s ed ited En cy clo - 

pe dia of Pol icy Stud ies, 2nd rev. and ex panded 

ed. (1994) is di vided into two parts: gen eral ap - 

proaches to pol icy stud ies (eleven chap ters on 

meth ods, prac tices, and na tional com par i sons) 

and spe cific pol icy prob lem ar eas (twenty-four 

chap ters di vided into dis ci plin ary-based 

work). With re gard to dis ci plines that con trib - 

ute to the in ter dis ci plin ary field of pol icy stud - 

ies, the in tro duc tion to the first edi tion (1983) 

rec og nizes: 

● po lit i cal sci ence (the pri mary con trib u tor, fo - 

cus ing on po lit i cal and ad min is tra tive fea si bil - 

ity of al ter na tive pol i cies for a range of pub lic 

prob lems); 

● eco nom ics (an a lyz ing cost-ben e fit re la tions 

of dif fer ent pol icy pro pos als); 

● psy chol ogy (ex am in ing re ward struc tures to 

mo ti vate pol icy im ple ment ers and the in di vid - 

ual re sults of pol i cies fo cused on per sonal out - 

comes); 

● so ci ol ogy (clar i fy ing so cial prob lems them - 

selves, their class bases and re la tion ships); 

● the nat u ral sci ences (pro vid ing data on phys i - 

cal and bi o log i cal fac tors, es pe cially re lated to 

pol i cies deal ing, for in stance, with en ergy and 

health); and 

● an thro pol ogy, ge og ra phy, and his tory (broad - 

en ing per spec tives across time and place). 

The En cy clo pe dia of Pol icy Stud ies gives 

the first five of these dis ci plin ary ap proaches 

ex tended at ten tion. But al though Nagel men - 

tions phi los o phy as able to make a con tri bu tion 

through its “spe cial con cern for the val ues to - 

ward which pub lic pol i cies are di rected and the 

ul ti mate logic of pol icy anal y sis” (xii), and in - 

cludes a short chap ter on “Val ues, Eth ics, and 

Stan dards in Pol icy Anal y sis,” phi los o phy gets 

as short shrift as his tory. The fact that pol icy 

stud ies is a post-World War II phe nom e non is 

men tioned but not ex am ined; there is no chap - 

ter on the his tory of pol icy or pol icy stud ies. 

Like wise, there is no chap ter on the phi los o phy 

of pol icy or of pol icy stud ies. 

More over, al though there are chap ters on 

“Tech nol ogy: In no va tion and Con se quences” 

(by Fred er ick A. Rossini and Alan L. Por ter), 

“U.S. Health Pol icy in De vel op men tal and 

Cross-Na tional Per spec tive” (by Da vid 

Falcone, Rob ert W. Broyles, and Ste ven R. 

Smith), “En ergy Pol icy” (by Rob ert M. Law - 

rence), “Bio med i cal Pol icy” (by Rob ert H. 

Blank), and “Space Pol icy” (by Rob ert M. 

Law rence), there is no chap ter de voted to sci - 

ence pol icy per se. These chap ters are all more 

de voted to how the sci ences can con trib ute in 

spe cific ar eas to pol icy for ma tion. They are 

con cerned more with “sci ence for pol icy” than 

“pol icy for sci ence.” 

While sci ence pol icy more broadly con - 

strued has been re sur gent since the 1990s, it re - 

mains a subfield of the broader pol icy move - 

ment. More over and not sur pris ingly, most 

ap proaches to the study of pol icy con tinue to 

re flect the per spec tives and meth od ol o gies of 

the dis ci plines in which they are based. For in - 

stance, for the most part po lit i cal sci en tists en - 

gage in “pol icy stud ies,” us ing char ac ter is tic 

meth ods and per spec tives. Econ o mists and 

those trained in eco nom ics ap ply the tools of 

cost-ben e fit meth od ol o gies to “pol icy anal y - 

sis.” Jour nal ti tles fol low these con ven tions: 

Pol icy Stud ies Jour nal (1972–pres ent) and 

Jour nal of Pol icy Anal y sis and Man age ment 

(1981–pres ent). Pol icy Sci ences (1970–pres - 

ent) re mains a flag ship of the Lasswellian tra - 

di tion. None of these jour nals pub lish pri mar - 

ily on sci ence pol icy. 

Sci ence Pol icy and Its Dis con tents 

De spite such ab sences in phi los o phy and in 

sci ence pol icy, the need for philo soph i cal as - 

sess ment of sci ence pol icy has never been 

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION 

5

more pro nounced — and has been em pha sized 

re peat edly over re cent de cades by suc ces sive 

ex am i na tions of United States sci ence pol icy. 

The eco nomic de cline of the late 1970s and 

1980s, the dis clo sure of eth i cal lapses in sci - 

ence dur ing the 1980s, the end of the Cold War 

in the early 1990s, and the bal loon ing fed eral 

bud get def i cits of the same pe riod com bined to 

sim u late re think ing of post-World War II gov - 

ern men tal pol i cies to ward the fund ing of sci - 

ence. It is not clear, how ever, that this re as sess - 

ment has gone ei ther deep or broad enough. 

While sci ence pol icy dis cus sions in creas ingly 

draw on skills and knowl edge from the so cial 

sci ences, they reg u larly fail to en gage the hu - 

man i ties—thus lim it ing the di men sions of sci - 

ence pol icy reform. 

Two para dig matic ex pe ri ences cre ated the 

frame work as sump tions of post-World War II 

sci ence pol icy. One was the cor rupt ing in flu - 

ence of fas cist and com mu nist gov ern men tal 

in ter fer ence with sci ence. Nazi pur suit of 

“Aryan sci ence” and the cri tique of rel a tiv ity 

the ory as Jew ish dec a dence drove phys i cists 

out of Ger many in droves. Like wise, the So viet 

cri tique of “bour geois ge net ics” and the de - 

fense of the evo lu tion ary in her i tance of ac - 

quired char ac ter is tics un der mined Rus sian bi - 

o log i cal re search and ag ri cul ture for de cades. 

The re sponse in the West was what may be 

termed the au ton omy the sis: Sci ence must be 

kept free from pol i tics and in su lated against all 

ef forts at po lit i cal ma nip u la tion. 

A sec ond for ma tive ex pe ri ence was the de - 

vel op ment by U.S. sci en tists (many of them 

Ger man émigrés) of weap ons such as ra dar 

and the atomic bomb that made de ci sive con - 

tri bu tions to win ning World War II. Given the 

free dom to pur sue their sci ence, sci en tists vol - 

un tarily ral lied to the dem o cratic cause. Given 

mas sive gov ern men tal fund ing, they did re - 

search and de vel op ment that was of crit i cal 

value to so ci ety. The re sponse was what has 

been called the lin ear ity the sis: Fund ing sci en - 

tific re search au to mat i cally pro duces so cial 

ben e fits. While it is not pos si ble to pre dict ex - 

actly how pure re search will ben e fit so ci ety, 

such knowl edge al ways re bounds to the good. 

On the ba sis of these two the ses, there 

emerged the ba sic prin ci ple of post-World War 

II sci ence pol icy: The gov ern ment should pro - 

vide no-strings at tached fund ing to sci en tists, 

be cause sci en tific re search in vari ably ben e fits 

so ci ety by mak ing mea sur able con tri bu tions to 

its mil i tary power, health care sys tem, or eco - 

nomic com pet i tive ness. There were, of course, 

ar gu ments around the mar gins re gard ing how 

much in de pend ence to give to sci en tists (lim its 

had to be placed on clas si fied re search, for ex - 

am ple) and what con sti tuted a well-bal anced 

so cial in vest ment in math e mat ics, phys ics, 

chem is try, and bi ol ogy. But none of these dis - 

cus sions af fected the ba sic prin ci ple: Give 

money to sci en tists, let them make their own 

de ci sions about how to spend it, and this will 

ul ti mately make so ci ety strong. 

The end of the Cold War at least tem po rarily 

al lowed ques tions to sur face about the need for 

the kind of mil i tary power sci ence was thought 

to pro vide. Does the U.S. re ally need to build 

more and better high-tech weap ons sys tems 

when there is no op pos ing su per power. Eco - 

nomic stag na tion and bud get def i cits fur ther 

called into ques tion the ef fec tive ness of fed - 

eral in vest ments in sci ence. Why was it that 

with the larg est num ber of No bel Prizes in sci - 

ence the U.S. econ omy was in many sec tors 

be ing bested by Ja pan, Ger many, and other na - 

tions? Par al lel to such po lit i cal and eco nomic 

ques tions, the in ves ti ga tive jour nal is tic ex po - 

sures of eth i cal mis con duct in sci ence to gether 

with so cial stud ies of the so cial con struc tion in 

sci ence chal lenged the idea of the non-po lit i - 

cal char ac ter of sci ence. Nazi and Com mu nist 

ef forts to con trol sci ence were ob vi ously crude 

fail ures at ex ter nal con trol of the in ner work - 

ings of sci ence. But have there not been other 

clear in stances in which po lit i cal agen das 

(some times on the part of sci en tists them - 

selves) suc cess fully in flu enced the di rec tion 

of sci en tific re search? Fem i nist crit i cisms of 

in vest ments in can cer re search (more for pros - 

tate can cer than for breast can cer, de spite the 

fact that more peo ple die of breast can cer) 

clearly pointed up how the in ter ests of sci en - 

tific re search ers (mostly males) could in flu - 

ence the di rec tions of sci ence. Taken to gether, 

such ques tions con spired to spon sor re peated 

dis cus sions in and of U.S. sci ence pol icy—dis - 

cus sions whose most prom i nent fea ture has 

been in creas ing en gage ment with the so cial 

sciences. 

Ini tially these dis cus sions fo cused on at - 

tempts to re-con ceive the end-ben e fit of sci en - 

tific re search in terms other than mil i tary 

power. The most com mon sub sti tutes were en - 

vi ron men tal sustainability and hu man health. 

For in stance, all three post-Cold War Pres i - 

dents—from Bush through Clinton to Bush— 

called for more re search on global cli mate 


6

change and com mit ted them selves to dra mat i - 

cally in crease fund ing at the Na tional In sti - 

tutes of Health. Since 9/11, of course, the pri - 

mary goal has be come the war on ter ror ism. 

More sig nif i cant than such straight for ward 

goal sub sti tu tion, how ever, has been a re as - 

sess ment of both found ing the ses of sci ence 

pol icy, in re verse or der to their his tor i cal emer - 

gence. That is, re as sess ment be gan by ad mit - 

ting some weak nesses in the lin ear ity the sis. 

Al though nu clear phys ics led to nu clear weap - 

ons and elec tric power gen er a tion, this pureto-ap 

plied move ment took place only by way 

of ex ten sive work in nu clear en gi neer ing, and 

be cause gov ern ment funders and sci en tist-en - 

gi neers as a con tin gency of his tory hap pened 

to share a war time con sen sus about po ten tial 

and use ful end-ben e fits. Af ter the war, the con - 

sen sus be came much more qual i fied, and out - 

comes cor re spond ingly more prob lem atic. 

More over, not all pure re search has an equal 

po ten tial for ap pli ca tion. As his tor i cal and so - 

cio log i cal anal y ses of sci ence have re peat edly 

shown, the pure-to-ap plied lin ear ity equa tion 

is more a highly qual i fied spe cial case than a 

gen eral rule. 

This ques tion ing of the lin ear ity the sis has 

been man i fested in a num ber of gov ern ment 

at tempts to stim u late or man age the lab o ra - 

tory-to-mar ket place re la tion ship—to en force 

lin ear ity, as it were. Ex am ples in clude the 

Bayh-Dole Act and amend ments (1980 and 

1984) of the Carter and Rea gan ad min is tra - 

tions, which pro moted the li cens ing of pat ents 

from pub licly funded re search; cre ation of the 

Na tional Tech nol ogy Trans fer Cen ter (1989) 

dur ing the first Bush ad min is tra tion; and the 

Gov ern ment Per for mance Re sults Act (1993) 

of the Clinton ad min is tra tion—the lat ter of 

which asked all fed eral agen cies, in clud ing 

those fund ing sci en tific re search, to pro vide 

more ex plicit and trans par ent pro ce dures for 

eval u at ing their ac tiv i ties. In deed, the de ci sion 

of the Re pub li can Con gress in 1993 to re duce 

fund ing for high-en ergy phys ics re search by 

can cel ing con struc tion of the super con duct ing 

super collider (SSC) plus the sub se quent com - 

mit ment to dou ble the bud get of the Na tional 

In sti tutes of Health were other prom i nent ef - 

fects of lin ear ity ques tion ing. Fi nally as a more 

gen eral pol icy mea sure, there was the 1997 

Con gres sio nal man date to the Na tional Sci - 

ence Foun da tion to al ter its pro posal re view 

cri te ria to give equal weight to “in tel lec tual 

merit” and “broader im pacts”—thus com ple - 

ment ing in ter nal me thod i cal as sess ment with 

ex ter nal con sid er ations and mod estly qual i fy - 

ing the char ac ter of sci en tific autonomy. 

Re as sess ment of the au ton omy the sis in fact 

has taken weak and strong forms. In the weak 

ver sion, as Da vid Guston has an a lyzed at 

length in his Be tween Pol i tics and Sci ence 

(2000), it is now rec og nized that con scious ef - 

forts need to be made to de velop ap pro pri ate 

mech a nisms to pro mote col lab o ra tion be - 

tween sci en tists and some ex ter nal stake - 

holders to guide cer tain spe cific ar eas of even 

the in ter nal work ings of sci ence. The sin gle 

most ob vi ous case has con cerned ques tions of 

re search mis con duct and in teg rity. In creased 

de pend ency on gov ern ment fund ing tempts 

sci en tists to cut cor ners in ways they some - 

times find dif fi cult to re sist and even more to 

po lice. Pol i ti cians have stepped in to de mand, 

for in stance, grad u ate ed u ca tion in the re spon - 

si ble con duct of re search in as so ci a tion with 

the re search grants from such agen cies as the 

Na tional In sti tutes of Health, and to es tab lish 

an Of fice of Re search In teg rity in the Of fice of 

the Sec re tary of Health and Hu man Ser vices to 

re spond to al le ga tions of re search mis con duct. 

In a much stron ger re as sess ment, the socalled 

“sci ence wars” at tacked the au ton omy 

the sis head. In this maximalist ver sion, the so - 

cial stud ies of sci ence pro posed that the sociopo 

lit i cal con struc tion of sci en tific knowl edge 

was a re sult not just of ex ter nal guid ance but 

also of the deep est in ter nal work ings of the sci - 

en tific pro cess. Al though widely re jected in 

this maximalist form, the so cial stud ies of sci - 

ence have none the less ex posed the for merly 

ob scured so cial di men sions op er a tive within 

the sci en tific com mu nity along side much of 

the sci en tific method. 

So cial Sci ence for Sci ence Pol icy 

As a re sult of a fad ing mem ory about both 

the World War II ex pe ri ences with the con tam - 

i na tion of sci ence by pol i tics and the di rect po - 

lit i cal ben e fits to large-scale fund ing for sci - 

ence, along with the cor re spond ing chal lenges 

to the au ton omy and lin ear ity the ses, the so cial 

sci ences have come to play an in creas ingly 

sig nif i cant role in sci ence pol icy. In the midtwen 

ti eth cen tury, so cial sci en tists sim ply 

mea sured in puts to sci ence, and the Or ga ni za - 

tion of Eco nomic Co op er a tion and De vel op - 

ment (OECD) cre ated a sci en tific in di ca tors 

in dus try around col lect ing and com par ing na - 


7

tional in vest ments in re search. The lin ear ity 

the sis dic tated this fo cus on eco nomic met rics, 

and im plied that other mea sure ments were 

prob a bly a waste of time and ef fort. 

But once the con tin gency of out puts be - 

came an is sue, so cial sci en tists be come in - 

volved on the other end of things as well. One 

lead ing ap proach looks at pro jected so cial as 

well as sci en tific out comes of par tic u lar re - 

search in vest ments, and asks whether in fact 

such out comes have been achieved or are 

likely—or might be achieved by other means. 

Con sider, for ex am ple, the war on can cer. 

Since Pres i dent Nixon de clared “war on can - 

cer” in the early 1970s the U.S. gov ern ment 

has spent over $30 bil lion on can cer re search, 

and yet can cer sur vival rates have only mar gin - 

ally im proved (see Proc tor, 1995). Cer tainly a 

strong case can be made that more mod est in - 

vest ments in pre ven tion, ed u ca tion, and en vi - 

ron men tal clean up would have had a much 

more dra matic im pact on can cer. But our col - 

lec tive com mit ment to sci en tific fixes over po - 

lit i cal or be hav ioral ones has en cour aged sci - 

en tists to prom ise more than they have been 

able to de liver and cit i zens to be more gull ible 

than pru dent. There seems to ex ist what Dan iel 

Callahan (2003) calls a “re search im per a tive” 

that tends to over ride more bal anced as sess - 

ments. 

Con sider, too, the case of global cli mate 

change re search. Since 1989 the U.S. has in - 

vested over $20 bil lion in global cli mate 

change re search. In al most ev ery case this re - 

search has been jus ti fied as lead ing to greater 

sci en tific un der stand ing of cli mate change dy - 

nam ics (es pe cially the anthropogenic di men - 

sions of such dy nam ics) lead ing to in creased 

en vi ron men tal sustainability. De spite this in - 

vest ment, the er ror bars sur round ing the range 

of pre dicted cli mate change by 2100 pro vided 

by the In ter gov ern men tal Panel on Cli mate 

Change re port (2001) were larger than for 

those given a de cade ear lier. Rather than ad ju - 

di cat ing the pro cess, sci ence pro vided fod der 

for an in creased range of in ter pre ta tions of the 

cli mate data. 

Rec og niz ing the gap be tween sci en tific re - 

search and so cial util ity, the Na tional Can cer 

In sti tute be gan to ask so cial sci ence to play a 

larger role in help ing bring re search to the pub - 

lic. So cial sci en tists have also be come in - 

volved in mon i tor ing sci en tific in teg rity and 

pro mot ing trans fer from lab o ra tory to mar ket - 

place. Sim i larly, the Na tional Cen ter for At - 

mo spheric Re search, the lead ing US in sti tu - 

tion for re search into cli mate change, has re - 

cently made a ma jor com mit ment to in creas - 

ing the prom i nence and fund ing of its so cial 

sci ence di rec tor ate. But to a large ex tent all 

such so cial sci ence work has merely taken the 

messy re al ity of non-lin ear ity and tried to 

make it as lin ear as pos si ble. Eco nom ics is thus 

the so cial sci ence that is most com monly 

funded; and quan ti ta tive and de scrip tive ac - 

counts pre dom i nate over the qual i ta tive and 

the nor ma tive. 

But a re cent cadre of sci en tists and so cial 

sci en tists have gone fur ther and put forth what 

can eas ily be termed a new sci ence pol icy. The 

new sci ence pol icy goes be yond try ing to en - 

force lin ear ity or to work around the kinks of 

non-lin ear ity. It looks at the pub licly stated 

goals of sci ence fund ing, some times set ting 

them in more ex pan sive so cial con texts that 

raise ques tions of eq uity and im pact, and then 

con sid ers whether the pro jected end-ben e fit 

out comes have been or are likely to be 

achieved by means of the re search pro gram so 

jus ti fied. If not, it pro poses that we give se ri ous 

con sid er ation to other means. Sci ence should 

not be the only means to pub lic pol icy ends, 

nor should the vested in ter ests of well es tab - 

lished sci en tific pro grams be al lowed to ob - 

scure al ter na tive re search pro jects. Sci ence 

pol icy should it self be sub ject to (so cial) sci en - 

tific ex am i na tion. 

Al though this new sci ence pol icy may be a 

sub stan tial im prove ment over the old, it nev er - 

the less limps in one im por tant re spect: It of ten 

ac cepts what ever so cial goals may have been 

given a rhe tor i cal bless ing by the ex ist ing body 

pol i tic. It is con cerned with con nect ing ef fort 

more ef fec tively to stated or as sumed end-ben - 

e fits; but it does not re con sider the wor thi ness 

of the end-ben e fits. Yet in any pol i tics wor thy 

of the name, this must surely be done as well. 

Ends must be re flected upon as well as 

means—which is where phi los o phy (at least in 

its tra di tional sense) co mes in. 

The so cial sci ences serve two re lated func - 

tions: (a) to as sess whether the spec i fied so cial 

aims of a sci en tific re search pro ject have been 

achieved, and (b) to help a sci en tific re search 

pro ject achieve these spec i fied so cial aims. 

There has also been some dis cus sion that the 

so cial sci ences can help for mu late proper aims 

for sci ence—per haps by pro vid ing ef fec tive 

mech a nisms by which the pub lic will con trib - 

ute to or par tic i pate in the for mu la tion of the 


8

so cial aims of sci en tific re search. Yet short of 

merely in stru men tal meth ods that equal 

broader quan ti ta tive par tic i pa tion, the so cial 

sci ences sensu stricto can do lit tle in this area. 

Theoretical Dimensions in the 

Philosophy of Science Policy 

The most me thod i cal ap proach to pol icy re - 

search is what Lasswell calls the pol icy sci - 

ences. In the course of his long, in ter dis ci plin - 

ary ca reer, Lasswell sought to ad vance a 

method for the sys tem atic anal y sis of any pol - 

icy prob lem (see Lerner and Lasswell, eds., 

1951, and Lasswell, 1971). Lasswell’s method 

cen ters around five in tel lec tual tasks: clar i fi ca - 

tion of goals, de scrip tions of trends, anal y sis of 

con di tions, pro jec tion of fu ture de vel op ments, 

and in ven tion, eval u a tion, and se lec tion of al - 

ter na tives. These tasks are nec es sary to ad - 

dress in tel li gently any num ber of pol icy is - 

sues, whether pub lic or pri vate, from those 

as so ci ated with tax a tion or war fare to prob - 

lems of man u fac tur ing and mar ket ing. 

But the spe cial need for pol icy sci ence is 

per haps best seen in re la tion to sci ence it self 

broadly con strued (that is, in re la tion to sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy taken to gether as in ter - 

act ing as pects of what is of ten called 

technoscience). As Lasswell ar gued in an en - 

try on the pol icy sci ences in The In ter na tional 

En cy clo pe dia of the So cial Sci ences (1968), 

sci ence is pre sent ing so ci ety with a suite of op - 

por tu ni ties: 

Weap ons of a novel kind lie close at hand, in - 

clud ing bombs that par a lyze tem po rarily with - 

out in flict ing per ma nent dam age. Teach ing and 

re search are al ready in ac tive re con struc tion as 

a re sult of new in stru ments of stor age, re trieval, 

and in struc tion. Com pe tent bi ol o gists fore see 

that the ge netic in her i tance of man can be de lib - 

er ately mod i fied. We are told that death it self 

may be abol ished by the sub sti tu tion of mol e - 

cules as they wear out. En gi neers ex pect to de - 

vise ma chines that sim u late or im prove on ex - 

ist ing forms of life, in clud ing man. (Lasswell, 

1968, 189) 

Given such op por tu ni ties, the most de - 

mand ing ques tions are not sim ply sci en tific 

but philo soph i cal and pol icy-ori ented: Which 

of these var i ous forms of sci ence should be 

pro moted or funded? By what mech a nisms? 

What should so ci ety do with the prod ucts? 

Should there be any so ci etal reg u la tion? If so, 

to what ends, and how? 

Surely the dis cov ery of the dis tinc tive aims 

and ap pro pri ate strat e gies for sci ence pol icy 

mak ers, im ple ment ers, and re search ers must 

in clude a sig nif i cant mea sure of phi los o phy, 

crit i cally re flect ing on the clar i fi ca tion of 

goals, de scrip tions of trends, anal y sis of con - 

di tions, pro jec tion of fu ture de vel op ments, 

and in ven tion, eval u a tion, and se lec tion of al - 

ter na tives—and whether these are the nec es - 

sary and suf fi cient in tel lec tual tasks in the sci - 

ence pol icy pro cess. 

But what, more pre cisely, might a phi los o - 

phy of sci ence pol icy look like? There are two 

ways to re spond to this ques tion. One would 

try to en vi sion the phi los o phy of sci ence pol - 

icy as phi los o phy, the other would sketch a 

view of the phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy as 

pol icy re search. 

In what sense is phi los o phy of sci ence pol - 

icy gen u ine phi los o phy? Phi los o phy may be 

sub di vided along two ma jor axes. The first 

axis is de fined by the fun da men tal ques tions 

that con sti tute philo soph i cal re flec tion, of 

which it is com mon to dis tin guish five: (1) 

logic, with which rhet o ric and meth od ol ogy 

may also be as so ci ated (What con sti tutes a 

valid ar gu ment or sound in fer ence?); (2) eth ics 

(What is right and wrong in hu man ac tion? 

What is the na ture of the good?); (3) po lit i cal 

phi los o phy (What is jus tice and in jus tice?); (4) 

epis te mol ogy (What is knowl edge?); and (5) 

meta phys ics and on tol ogy (What is real? How 

are the dif fer ent as pects of re al ity prop erly dis - 

tin guished and re lated?) 

A sec ond axis is con sti tuted by the par tic u - 

lar fields or topoi where such fun da men tal 

ques tions are de ployed. This axis yields an in - 

def i nite se ries of regionalizations such as the 

phi los o phy of sci ence, of art, of re li gion, of 

law, of lan guage, etc. In each of these “phi los o - 

phies of X” the fun da men tal ques tions are reasked 

and regionalized, of ten with dif fer en tial 

and dis tinc tive em pha ses. For in stance, in the 

phi los o phy of art ques tions are raised con cern - 

ing the logic of aes thetic ex pres sion, the eth ics 

of ar tis tic cre ativ ity, the jus tice of spe cific ar - 

tis tic re ward struc ture, the epis te mol ogy of ar - 

tis tic knowl edge, and the on tol ogy of art ob - 

jects. How ever, in the phi los o phy of lan guage, 

epistemological ques tions tend to pre dom i - 

nate and eth i cal ques tions play hardly any role. 

The phi los o phy of sci ence, like wise, is char ac - 

ter ized by the prom i nence of log i cal and 


9

epistemological is sues, with only sub sid iary 

at ten tion to eth ics, po lit i cal phi los o phy, or 

meta phys ics. 

With re gard to the phi los o phy of sci ence 

pol icy, it is im por tant to note that if sci ence 

pol icy is not as prom i nent a hu man phe nom e - 

non as, say, art or lan guage, it in creas ingly ri - 

vals sci ence it self as de serv ing philo soph i cal 

at ten tion. More over, it is im por tant not to pre - 

judge the pa ram e ters of this new “phi los o phy 

of X.” For in stance, granted the lack of at ten - 

tion in phi los o phy of sci ence to po lit i cal philo - 

soph i cal ques tions, and given that sci ence pol - 

icy can be viewed as a kind of pol i tics, it is 

tempt ing to pres ent this new field as an ap pen - 

dix to po lit i cal phi los o phy, fo cused pri mar ily 

on ques tions of jus tice in and in re la tion to sci - 

ence. But, in fact, there are also im por tant 

ques tions of the logic of sci ence pol icy ar gu - 

ments, the eth ics of sci ence pol icy de ci sion 

mak ing, and the char ac ter of sci ence pol icy 

knowl edge. Fi nally, be cause ev ery sci ence 

pol icy makes as sump tions about the sta tus of 

sci ence it self, the phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy 

must con sider not just the epistemological sta - 

tus of sci en tific knowl edge, but also the on to - 

log i cal bound aries of sci ence as a hu man ac tiv - 

ity and of its var i ous in sti tu tions. 

As a new re gional ex pres sion of phi los o phy, 

the phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy will thus in - 

clude a spec trum of key con cerns such as: 

(a) The logic of pol icy meth ods, in clud ing the 

proper rhet o ric of pol icy rec om men da tions; 

(b) The eth ics not just of pro fes sional sci en tists 

but of the re la tions be tween sci en tists and the 

pub lic, in clud ing the spe cial eth i cal ob li ga tions 

of sci en tists who are pub licly funded and pol icy 

an a lysts sup ported by pub lic funds; 

(c) Jus tice is sues within the sci en tific com mu - 

ni ties and be tween the sci ence and so ci ety, in - 

clud ing but not lim ited to ques tions about the 

ad e quacy of con cep tu al iza tions of the so cial 

con tract for sci ence, the role of sci en tific ex per - 

tise in a dem o cratic state, and the proper pa ram - 

e ters of pub lic par tic i pa tion in sci ence; 

(d) The epistemological strengths and weak - 

nesses of mod els and sim u la tions; and 

(e) On to log i cal ques tions re lated to sci en tific 

in sti tu tions and their man i fold bound ary or ga - 

ni za tions. 

Prac ti cal Di men sions 

But granted that phi los o phy of sci ence pol - 

icy may, with at ten tion and de vel op ment, 

make a rea son able claim to be phi los o phy, is it 

pos si ble also to ar gue that it can also con trib ute 

to pol icy re search? One fa vor able in di ca tor co - 

mes from not ing the role of prag ma tism within 

pol icy re search. In his in flu en tial out line, A 

Pre-view of Pol icy Sci ences (1971), Lasswell 

be gins by ex plic itly al ly ing his work with “the 

gen eral ap proach to pub lic pol icy that was rec - 

om mended by John Dewey and his col leagues 

in the de vel op ment of Amer i can prag ma tism” 

(xix). To date, how ever, al most no post-Dewey 

de vel op ments in prag ma tism—such as those 

ad vanced by Wil lard Van Orman Quine, Don - 

ald Davidson, Hil ary Putnam, or Rich ard 

Rorty (to name only the most lu mi nary)—have 

been brought to bear on pol icy sci ence. In deed, 

lesser known prag ma tists such as John Stuhr 

(1997) and Larry Hickman (2001) have im por - 

tant con tri bu tions to make in or der to up date 

Lasswell’s an a lytic scheme for a world of 

internet com mu ni ca tions and glob al ized eco - 

nom ics. 

In a précis of the Pre-View a quar ter cen tury 

on, Ron ald Brun ner deftly sum ma rizes the 

fun da men tal pos tu late of pol icy sci ence: “that 

peo ple act se lec tively to max i mize pre ferred 

out comes ac cord ing to their own per spec tives; 

but the acts are less than fully ra tio nal be cause 

the rel e vant per spec tives are in com plete, dis - 

torted, and un con scious in var i ous re spects 

and de grees” (Brun ner, 1996, 623). Phi los o - 

phy can as sist peo ple, in clud ing pol icy re - 

search ers ded i cated to this task, to un der stand 

better what ra tio nal ity con sists of, thereby 

help ing to de velop a richer and more nuanced 

sense of ra tio nal ity by re flec tive anal y sis and 

crit i cism. This is a time hon ored con tri bu tion 

to hu man life from phi los o phy, even in its most 

professionalized or ac a demic form. But phi - 

los o phy can make such a con tri bu tion only by 

be com ing en gaged with pol icy and pol icy re - 

search, in the pres ent in stance in the form of 

sci ence pol icy. 

The case for the abil ity of the phi los o phy of 

sci ence pol icy to make a con tri bu tion to sci - 

ence pol icy re search—and even to sci ence pol - 

icy work it self—is strength ened by fo cus ing 

on eth ics. Pol icy re search and pol icy work re - 

quire eth i cal guide lines of hon esty, in teg rity, 

loy alty, and more, all of which re quire pro tec - 

tion against in com plete ness, dis tor tion, and 


10

un con scious or in ap pro pri ate ad her ence. Al - 

though it is rea son able to main tain, as 

Lasswell him self ap pears to do, that nor ma tive 

po si tions ul ti mately rest on meta-nor ma tive 

un der stand ings of re al ity, still there is a sense 

in which eth ics may be taken as first phi los o - 

phy. Eth ics is not only an anal y sis of and re - 

flec tion on moral con duct; it also makes a con - 

tri bu tion to the prac tice of mo ral ity and in deed 

is it self a form of mo ral ity. In like man ner, the 

phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy should not only 

an a lyze and re flect on sci ence pol icy, but in the 

pro cess of its re flec tion con trib ute to and even 

be come it self a kind of sci ence pol icy. The phi - 

los o phy of sci ence pol icy as pol icy re search 

and as pol icy prac tice will step be yond the 

bounds of in ter est group pol i tics and quan ti ta - 

tive cost-ben e fit anal y ses (with out re ject ing 

their achieve ments), to broaden and deepen 

sci ence pol icy de ci sion mak ing and im ple - 

men ta tion. 

The up shot of the pur suit the phi los o phy of 

sci ence pol icy and its in te gra tion into sci ence 

pol icy work will be a wid en ing and deep en ing 

of both—not just in his tor i cal per spec tive, but 

in ways that help us con front the daunt ing 

chal lenges we face in liv ing with sci ence. For 

in stance, pro fes sional eth i cal ques tions have 

im pli ca tions not just for per sonal con duct, but 

for the struc tur ing of so cial in sti tu tions. The 

epistemological prob lems of mod el ing need to 

be con sid ered in as sess ing sci en tific pre dic - 

tions. And the dis tinc tion be tween sci ence for 

pol icy and pol icy for sci ence may be less on to - 

logi cally sound than is com monly as sumed. 

Dis cus sions that move from in ter est group 

power and eco nomic ef fi ciency to ques tions of 

truth, good ness, and beauty can make sci ence 

pol icy work richer and more ro bust—and thus, 

in a deeper than a po lit i cal or eco nomic sense, 

more ef fec tive. The phi los o phy of sci ence pol - 

icy holds out the prom ise of pro mot ing sci ence 

pol i cies that are less in com plete, dis torted, and 

un con scious than they might oth er wise be. 

The Pres ent Pa pers 

The goal of the pres ent col lec tion of pa pers 

is thus to ad vance a more com plete, less dis - 

torted, and more con scious re flec tion on sci - 

ence pol icy. To this end they in clude a di ver sity 

of is sues from dif fer ent philo soph i cal and na - 

tional per spec tives. 

The first pa per, by Andoni Alonso, Carlos 

Cas tro, and Fernando Solís, de scribes “Re - 

search, De vel op ment, and In no va tion in 

Extremadura: A Gnu/Linex Case Study.” 

Against a back ground of po lit i cal philo soph i - 

cal con cerns for the loss of com mu nity in a 

high-tech, sci en tific so ci ety, the au thors an a - 

lyze the im pact of a de ci sion by the re gional 

gov ern ment in Extremadura, Spain, to sup port 

de vel op ment of free and open source soft ware 

dur ing the early 2000s. Their ar gu ment is that a 

technoscientific pol icy may be judged on 

grounds other than straight for ward eco nomic 

ben e fit. In this case, ben e fits of a par tic u lar 

pol icy have in cluded com mu ni tarian de vel op - 

ment—a point that will also be sug gested as a 

new and quite ap pro pri ate sci ence pol icy as - 

sess ment cri te rion in Turaga and Turaga’s es - 

say. 

The sec ond pa per, Eric Co hen’s “Sci ence, 

De moc racy, and Stem Cells,” is an other case 

study fo cus ing this time on de bates re gard ing 

stem cell and em bryo re search. Be tween 

Alonso et al. and Co hen the two ma jor 

technosciences of our time—in for ma tion 

technoscience and bi o log i cal technoscience— 

are thus given crit i cal case study at ten tion. Fol - 

low ing an over view of the cur rent stem cell 

dis cus sion, Co hen ar gues its im por tance as in - 

tro duc ing a level of philo soph i cal se ri ous ness 

into pub lic life, ref er enc ing es pe cially the ef - 

forts of Pres i dent George W. Bush’s Coun cil 

on Bioethics. Stem cell re search is an oc ca sion 

for de bate be tween lib er als and con ser va tives 

about the mean ing of sci ence and the na ture of 

the hu man con di tion. 

“Pro le gom e non to a Fu ture Hu man i ties 

Pol icy” by Rob ert Frodeman, Adam Briggle, 

Erik Fisher, and Shep Ryan is a col lab o ra tive 

es say on how phi los o phy and the hu man i ties 

might be come more en gaged with sci ence pol - 

icy. It points up a gap be tween the abun dant 

knowl edge pro duced by the nat u ral sci ences 

and the con crete needs of de ci sion mak ers, 

sug gest ing that nei ther more sci ence nor more 

“sci en tific” pol icy anal y sis by them selves will 

lead to better de ci sions. A better hope for 

bridg ing this gulf lies in bring ing the nor ma - 

tive and acculturating per spec tives of the hu - 

man i ties to bear in pol icy de bates in a way that 

com ple ments the re search of both phys i cal sci - 

en tists and pol icy sci en tists, thereby mak ing 

their work more rel e vant to so ci ety. 

Matthias Gross and Wolfgang Krohn’s 

“Sci ence in a Real-World Con text: Con struct - 

ing Knowl edge through Re cur sive Learn ing” 

pro vides an ex tended his tor i cal and philo soph - 


11

i cal re view of pro pos als for how the spe cial - 

ized world of sci en tific ex per i ment prop erly 

con trib utes to larger (or real) world. In the 

course of con sid er ing the views of phi los o - 

phers Fran cis Ba con and René Des cartes, poet 

Johann Wolfgang von Goe the, chem ist Justus 

von Liebig, and so cial ac tiv ist Jane Addams, 

the au thors ar gue that the so cial sup port of 

mod ern nat u ral sci ence is it self a ma jor 

historico-so cial ex per i ment, and must be as - 

sessed as such. Frodeman et al. and Gross and 

Krohn be tween them of fer new ways to see 

phi los o phy at work in re la tion to sci ence, not 

just in pro fes sional phi los o phy but in the hu - 

man i ties more broadly con strued. 

With “On the Au ton omy of the Sci ences” 

Philip Kitcher un der takes a fron tal crit i cism of 

the widely as sumed idea that the sci ences are 

and/or should be in de pend ent of so cial and po - 

lit i cal pres sures. Ac cord ing to this view, sci en - 

tists should seek truth no mat ter where it leads. 

But ex plor ing a crit i cism that sci en tific knowl - 

edge pro duc tion some times ig nore the com - 

mon good, Kitcher ar gues in stead that sci en - 

tists must seek not just truth in gen eral but 

truths that mat ter, and truths that mat ter not 

just to sci en tists but also those truths that mat - 

ter to the larger so ci ety in which sci en tists live 

and work. This es say thus con sti tutes an im - 

por tant gloss on the larger ar gu ment of his 

book Sci ence, Truth, and De moc racy (2001) 

that seeks to de velop the no tion of “well-or - 

dered sci ence.” 

In “From Fron tier to Ter ror ism: To ward an 

In ter dis ci plin ary As sess ment of Sci ence Ed u - 

ca tion Pol icy Mak ing” Juan Lucena places 

cur rent ar gu ments in sup port of in creased sci - 

ence fund ing as part of the de fense against ter - 

ror ism in their larger his tor i cal and so cial con - 

text. As his in ter dis ci plin ary anal y sis 

dem on strates, a rhe tor i cal strat egy that first be - 

came dom i nant af ter World War II was sim ply 

ad justed to con tinue a long-stand ing ap peal for 

in creas ing sci ence ed u ca tion for na tional ben - 

e fit. Lucena case study thus il lus trates again 

the ar gu ment of Frodeman et al., that to ig nore 

hu man i ties per spec tives is to fail to ap pre ci ate 

im por tant di men sions of sci ence pol icy. 

Alison Shaw and John Rob in son’s “Rel e - 

vant but not Pre scrip tive? Sci ence Pol icy Mod - 

els in the IPCC” of fers a case study in or der to 

de scribe a new type of re la tion be tween sci - 

ence and pol icy as it has emerged in con nec - 

tion the In ter gov ern men tal Panel on Cli mate 

Change (IPCC), the larg est ex am ple of “man - 

dated sci ence” ever un der taken. Pre vi ous stud - 

ies of the IPCC have em pha sized is sues re lated 

to the sci en tific cred i bil ity of its find ings; the 

fo cus here is on the cred i bil ity of the pro cess 

and pro to cols em ployed to as sess “pol icy rel e - 

vant but not pol icy pre scrip tive sci en tific in - 

for ma tion.” As a back ground for this case 

study as sess ment, an ap pen dix pro vides an ex - 

tended de scrip tion of the IPCC it self. But the 

more philo soph i cal ar gu ment is that the ne go - 

ti a tion of mean ing that takes place within the 

IPCC rep re sents a cred i ble and use ful way to 

bridge the sci ence/pol icy di vide and of fers in - 

sights into the fu ture role of sci ence in so ci ety. 

Dan iel Sarewitz, Guillermo Foladori, 

Noela Invernizza, and Michele S. Garfinkel, in 

“Sci ence Pol icy in Its So cial Con text,” de velop 

three case stud ies to sup port crit i cism of three 

com mon in stru men tal jus ti fi ca tions of sci en - 

tific re search: that it is nec es sary to cre ate new 

wealth, to solve par tic u lar so ci etal prob lems, 

and/or to pro vide the in for ma tion nec es sary 

for ef fec tive de ci sion mak ing. In each case 

there ex ist sig nif i cant dis par i ties be tween the - 

o ret i cal jus ti fi ca tion and prac ti cal re sults that 

arise be cause the rel e vant sci ence pol icy de ci - 

sions have been made with out ad e quate con - 

sid er ation of the broader so cial con text. At - 

tend ing to the broader con text will im prove the 

ca pac ity of sci ence pol icy to achieve de sired 

so cial out comes, re duce the po ten tial for neg a - 

tive out comes, or at least cre ate more re al is tic 

ex pec ta tions for what sci ence can ac tu ally 

con trib ute to society. 

Kristin Shrader-Frechette writes, in “Mod - 

els of Pan ther Bi ol ogy and Radibiology: Phi - 

los o phy of Sci ence as Sci en tific Cit i zen ship,” 

with a white heat of moral in dig na tion about 

the meth od olog i cal short com ings in two cases 

of sci ence for pol icy. The at tempt to use sci - 

ence to down play dan gers of eco nomic de vel - 

op ment to the Florida pan ther and of ra dio log i - 

cal ex po sure to hu man health are not just 

eth i cally in de fen si ble; they are also bad sci - 

ence. If sci ence is to be used to in form pol icy it 

first has to be good sci ence, not just a rhe tor i cal 

ap peal to sci ence to jus tify spe cial in ter ests. In 

this es say Shrader-Frechette pro poses a new 

ideal for the pro fes sional sci en tist, that of sci - 

en tific cit i zen ship, and a jus ti fi ca tion for her 

own ex ten sive prac tice of crit i ciz ing sci ence 

for pol icy work that is os ten si bly sci ence but is 

in truth aimed to but tress pol icy de ci sions that 

are them selves de fec tive. 


12

“Sci ence Pol icy for In dia: A Memo to the 

In dian Coun cil of Sci en tific and In dus trial Re - 

search” is adapted from a real-world white pa - 

per by Uday T. Turaga and Rama Mohana 

Turaga. In dia is cur rently re as sess ing its na - 

tional sci ence pol icy, and as part of this pro cess 

these two early ca reer sci en tists were asked to 

con trib ute their views to a na tional com mis - 

sion. While grant ing the value of sci ence they 

ar gue, first, that the In dian gov ern ment should 

be more crit i cal in ap ply ing its own tra di tional 

cri te ria for as sess ing sci ence fund ing and, sec - 

ond, de velop new met rics for as sess ing such 

fund ing. Se ri ous con sid er ation should be 

given to de vel op ing new cri te ria for as sess ing 

pol i cies for sci ence re lated to the abil ity of sci - 

ence to as sist weaker mem bers of so ci ety, in - 

crease sci en tific lit er acy, and pro mote na tional 

in te gra tion. 

Ambrosio Velasco Gómez’s “To ward a Po - 

lit i cal Phi los o phy of Sci ence” pro vides a fit - 

ting con clu sion to this col lec tion by re turn ing 

to the twen ti eth cen tury roots of stan dard ap - 

proaches to the phi los o phy of sci ence, and 

then de ploys the re sources of an a lytic phi los o - 

phy of sci ence to ar gue for the rel e vance of 

moral and po lit i cal is sues even when fo cus ing 

on the epistemological or internalist as pects of 

sci ence. His claim is that in so far as Otto 

Neurath, Pi erre Duhem, and oth ers have cor - 

rectly noted the un der-de ter mi na tion of the ory 

by em pir i cal ob ser va tions, there are good rea - 

sons for col lab o ra tion be tween sci en tists and 

cit i zens con cern ing the pro duc tion of sci en - 

tific knowl edge. Re in forc ing Kitcher, Velasco 

Gómez ar gues that even from within the 

frame work es tab lished by de bates re gard ing 

as sumed dis tinc tions be tween the con text of 

dis cov ery vs. the con text of jus ti fi ca tion as 

well as externalist vs. internalist ap proaches to 

sci ence, there ex ists an im plicit po lit i cal phi - 

los o phy of sci ence. The at tempt to priv i lege 

epis te mol ogy over pol i tics in ev i ta bly has po - 

lit i cal ram i fi ca tions. The con cep tual anal y sis 

pre sented here thus com ple ments and con - 

firms the more his tor i cal-so cial anal y sis de vel - 

oped by Gross and Krohn, that ex per i ment 

takes place not only in the lab o ra tory but in the 

sci ence-so ci ety re la tion as well—and calls for 

philo soph i cal assessment. 

Three fea tures of these con tri bu tions de - 

serve high light ing. First, the twenty-three au - 

thors of these eleven pa pers rep re sent seven 

dif fer ent coun tries (Can ada, Co lom bia, Ger - 

many, In dia, Mex ico, Spain, and United 

States). Sec ond, more than half (six out of 

eleven) of the pa pers are co-authored—in two 

cases by four au thors. Third, few of the au thors 

are pro fes sional phi los o phers; in deed they 

rep re sent more than a dozen dis ci plin ary back - 

grounds. None of these fea tures are ac ci den tal. 

Pur suit of the phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy is 

in her ently in ter na tional, col lab o ra tive, and in - 

ter dis ci plin ary. Also of note is the im por tance 

of case stud ies and the com ple men tary char ac - 

ter of his tor i cal and an a lytic ap proaches. It is 

our ar gu ment and the wit ness of this col lec tion 

that in all these re spects pos si bil i ties for the 

phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy of fer op por tu ni - 

ties to en rich phi los o phy—and thereby to con - 

trib ute to sci ence policy. 

REFERENCES 

Borchert, Don ald M., ed. (1996) En cy clo pe dia of Phi los - 

o phy Sup ple ment. New York: Macmillan. 

Brooks, Harvey. (1968) The Gov ern ment of Sci ence. 

Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Brun ner, Ron ald D. (1991) “The Pol icy Move ment as a 

Pol icy Prob lem,” Pol icy Sci ences24: 65–98. 

Brun ner, Ron ald D. (1996) “Pol icy Sci ences.” In Adam 

Kuper and Jessica Kuper, eds., The So cial Sci ence En cy - 

clo pe dia, 2nd edi tion. Lon don: Routledge, 622–25. 

Callahan, Dan iel. (2003) What Price Better Health? Haz - 

ards of the Re search Im per a tive. Berke ley, CA: Uni ver - 

sity of California Press. 

Chadwick, Ruth, ed. (1998) Encyclopedia of Applied 

Ethics. 4 vols. San Diego, CA: Ac a demic Press. 

Craig, Ed ward, ed. (1998) Routledge En cy clo pe dia of 

Phi los o phy. 10 vols. New York: Routledge. 

Curd, Mar tin, and J. A. Cover, eds. (1998) Phi los o phy of 

Sci ence: The Cen tral Is sues. New York: W. W. Norton. 

Dunn, Wil liam N. (1994) Pub lic Pol icy Anal y sis: An In - 

tro duc tion. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- 

Hall. 

Ed wards, Paul, ed. (1968) En cy clo pe dia of Phi los o phy. 8 

vols. New York: Macmillan. 

Guston, Da vid. (2000) Be tween Pol i tics and Sci ence: As - 

sur ing the In teg rity and Pro duc tiv ity of Re search. New 

York: Cambridge University Press. 

Halal, Wil liam E., and Ken neth B. Tay lor, eds. (1999) 

Twenty-First Cen tury Eco nom ics: Per spec tives of 


13

Socioeconomics for a Chang ing World. New York: St. 

Martin’s Press. 

Hickmann, Larry. (2001) Philo soph i cal Tools for Tech no - 

log i cal Cul ture: Putt ing Prag ma tism to Work. 

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 

Hook, Sid ney. (1980) Philosophy and Public Policy. Car - 

bondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 

Kitcher, Philip. (2001) Sci ence, Truth, and De moc racy. 

New York: Ox ford Uni ver sity Press. 

Klemke, E. D., Rob ert Hollinger, and A. Da vid Kline, 

eds. (1988) In tro duc tory Read ings in the Phi los o phy of 

Sci ence. Buf falo, NY: Pro me theus Books. 

Lambright, Henry W. (1998) “Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and 

Pub lic Pol icy.” In Jay M. Shafritz, ed., In ter na tional En - 

cy clo pe dia of Pub lic Pol icy Ad min is tra tion. Boul der, 

CO: Westview Press, vol. 4, 2032–36. 

Lasswell, Har old D. (1971) A Pre-View of Pol icy Sci - 

ences. New York: Elsevier. 

Lasswell, Har old D. (1968) “Pol icy Sci ences.” In Da vid 

L. Sills, ed., In ter na tional En cy clo pe dia of the So cial 

Sci ences. New York: Macmillan, vol. 12, 181–89. 

Lerner, Dan iel, and Har old D. Lasswell, eds. (1951) The 

Pol icy Sci ences: Re cent De vel op ments in Scope and 

Method. Stan ford, CA: Stan ford Uni ver sity Press. 

Nagel, Stu art S., ed. (1994) En cy clo pe dia of Pol icy Stud - 

ies, 2nd rev. and ex panded edi tion. New York: Mar cel 

Dekker. First ed., 1983. 

Proc tor, Rob ert. (1995) Can cer Wars: How Pol i tics 

Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Can cer. 

New York: Harper Col lins. 

Salmon, Merrilee H., John Earman, Clark Glymour, 

James G, Lennox, Pe ter Mchamer, J. E. McGuire, John 

D. Norton, Wes ley C. Salmon, and Ken neth F. 

Schaffner. (1992) In tro duc tion to the Phi los o phy of Sci - 

ence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Shrader-Fechette, Kristin S. (1984) Sci ence Pol icy, Eth - 

ics, and Eco nomic Meth od ol ogy: Some Prob lems of 

Tech nol ogy As sess ment and En vi ron men tal-Im pact 

Analysis. Boston: D. Reidel. 

Stokey, Edith, and Rich ard Zeckhauser. (1978) A Primer 

for Policy Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton. 

Stuhr, John J. (1997) Ge ne a log i cal Prag ma tism: Phi los - 

o phy, Ex pe ri ence, and Com mu nity. Al bany, NY: State 

Uni ver sity of New York Press. 

Tribe, Law rence H. (1972) “Pol icy Sci ence: Anal y sis or 

Ideology?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (Au tumn): 

66–110. 


14

RE SEARCH, DE VEL OP MENT, AND IN NO VA TION IN 

EXTREMADURA 

A GNU/LINEX CASE STUDY 

Andoni Alonso, Luis Casas, Carlos Cas tro, and Fernando Solís 

For forty years in for ma tion and com mu ni - 

ca tion tech nol o gies (ICT) to gether with the 

internet have been re shap ing daily life. The 

crit i cisms of elec tronic luddites find it dif fi cult 

to in flu ence the fait acompli of ICT trans for - 

ma tions. In the con tem po rary world it is as - 

sumed that tech no log i cal com pe tence plus the 

free mar ket equals prog ress. There are sim ply 

no al ter na tives. 

The econ o mist Jo seph Schumpeter (1883– 

1950) dis tin guished in ven tion from in no va - 

tion. In ven tion is con sti tuted by tech no log i cal 

change alone, but in no va tion re quires the suc - 

cess ful mar ket ing of an in ven tion by adapt ing 

it to the mar ket place. Not all in ven tions en ter 

so ci ety sim ply on the ba sis of their util ity. But 

should mar ket forces alone di rect in no va tion, 

with gov ern ments hav ing no role ex cept to fa - 

vor or crit i cize al ready cir cu lat ing de vel op - 

ments? The re sponse to this ques tion must ac - 

knowl edge two ba sic points: First, any 

tech nol ogy rep re sents also a po lit i cal choice. 

Sec ond, ICT are cre at ing some thing be yond 

sim ple eco nomic ben e fit. They are pro duc ing 

a new cul ture or what some have called 

cyberculture. 

It is true that pol i tics and cul ture can not be 

com pletely de signed in ad vance. There are al - 

ways el e ments of un cer tainty. In ter ac tions of 

in ten tion and con tin gency gen er ate dif fer ent 

ex pe ri ences. But can we ex pect di ver sity in the 

in for ma tion so ci ety as it arises solely from the 

mar ket? Should we not try to pro mote mod els 

ap pro pri ate to dif fer ent po lit i cal and cul tural 

re al i ties? Can we har mo nize dif fer ent mod els 

of in for ma tion so ci ety and have a shared arena 

for dif fer ent ex pe ri ences? If the an swers are 

“Yes,” then we should try to imag ine an ar ray 

of mod els in stead of one unique in for ma tion 

so ci ety. 

But in an in creas ingly glob al ized so ci ety it 

is dif fi cult to think in plu ral is tic terms. A sin - 

gle mar ket com bined with some one unique 

tech nol ogy does not pro mote the imag in ing of 

di ver sity. Tele com mu ni ca tions, the internet, 

and a global mar ket im plies a ho mo ge neous or 

uni form realm. Nev er the less, some ob serv ers 

see such di ver sity emerg ing. Pekka Himannen 

(2001) and Manuel Castells an a lyze the Finn - 

ish model to re veal an al ter nate in for ma tion 

so ci ety in a dis ap pear ing wel fare state man - 

aged by pri vate cor po ra tions. The Basque 

model (Andoni Alonso and Izaki Arzoz, 2003) 

pro vides an other ex am ple—as does the au ton - 

o mous re gion of Extremadura in west ern 

Spain, which is one of the most in ter est ing ex - 

am ples of ICT in no va tion pro moted by po lit i - 

cal ini tia tive in Eu rope. 

Information Society: Open or Closed? 

Ac cord ing to most com men ta tors, ICTs are 

pri mar ily means for eco nomic de vel op ment. 

Nich o las Negroponte (1996) wrote some years 

ago about the new dig i tal par a digm that trans - 

forms at oms into bytes; com mod i ties should 

be trans lated into in for ma tion. Bill Gates 

(1999) con sid ers the internet the larg est shop - 

ping mall on Earth, one in which eco nom ics 

and com pe tence are per fected be cause all fric - 

tions van ish (me di a tors dis ap pear so prices 

reach an ab so lutely fair level). In deed, many 

econ o mists see United States eco nomic 

growth dur ing the 1990s as a re sult of im ple - 

ment ing the internet and other com puter tools 

able to boost pro duc tiv ity. This was a les son 

that Eu ro pean tech no crats took very se ri ously 

and the Fifth Eu ro pean Com mu nity Frame - 

work Programme for Re search, Tech no log i cal 

De vel op ment and Dem on stra tion (1998– 

2002) had as one of its goals pro mot ing a new 

Eu ro pean econ omy based in ICTs. 

ICTs may power the econ omy, but this is 

not all they do. In the apt de scrip tion of Chris 

Hables Gray (2002), the Internet has mil i tary 

past, an an ar chist pres ent, and a free-mar ket 

fu ture. Yet in so far as past is pro logue, there is 

no need to take the fu ture as de ter mined. The 

fact that ICTs have had dif fer ent cul tural con - 

fig u ra tions should en cour age us to think of al - 

ter na tives in what might be. Eco nom ics, pol i - 

tics, and cul ture are some times con flict ing 

forces seek ing to shape ICT, and there is no 


15

ea son to pre sume that one re la tion ship be - 

tween these fac tors has pri or ity. 

Dif fer en tial weigh ing of these three fac tors 

yields dif fer ent mod els of ICT de vel op ment. 

In an econ omy based model, cul ture and pol i - 

tics are sub or di nate el e ments. Here the econ - 

omy tends to act as a Dar win ian en vi ron ment 

that pro motes cer tain kinds of sur vival and 

elim i nates the less eco nom i cally fit. So cial 

Dar win ism is res ur rected as eco nomic Dar - 

win ism be cause it ap pears to ex plain com mer - 

cial evo lu tion (see Evan I Schwartz, 1999). But 

there is no such thing as “pure econ omy.” 

Econ o mies are them selves struc tured by pol i - 

tics and cul ture. Ev ery eco nomic choice in - 

volves some com mit ment con cern ing what 

should or should not ex ist. In ad di tion, tech - 

nol o gies may some times act as “cul tural eras - 

ers,” un der min ing pre vi ous per cep tions and 

re shap ing pol i tics. The his tory of tech nol ogy 

dem on strates how the tele phone, trains, and 

au to mo biles all re shaped our no tions of space 

and time, and con se quently in flu enced be hav - 

ior. Re shap ing per cep tions can lead to changes 

in ac tors, in sti tu tions, and pro cesses. 

At the same time, ICTs do seem to fa vor 

cer tain types of change, namely, those as so ci - 

ated with glob al iza tion and the blur ring of na - 

tional bound aries that are chal lenges to na tion 

states. There may be po lit i cal con se quences of 

ICTs. An a lysts such as Her bert Schiller give 

just such an ideo log i cal ac count of late in for - 

ma tion cap i tal ism (in Frank Web ster 2002). 

Cor po ra tions ini tially de vel oped com mu ni ca - 

tions in or der to ex pand their in ter na tional net - 

works, with the re sult that such net works are 

bi ased by con crete aims built into them. Like 

the mil i tary, cor po ra tions fa vored tech no log i - 

cal sys tems to ex change and share in for ma - 

tion, but in for ma tion lim ited to par tic u lar pur - 

poses. More over, me dia con tent is bi ased 

to ward west ern con sum er ism, the eco nomic 

prac tices of which are never crit i cized. 

Al though eco nom ics is the key el e ment of 

the in for ma tion so ci ety, there may be un in - 

tended non-eco nomic con se quences to be con - 

sid ered. That is, there are more re sults than the 

in creased sales that were ini tially pro jected 

and, in deed, the broader im pli ca tions for the 

economization of cul ture and dem o cratic mar - 

ket ing in pol i tics were not just ac cepted but af - 

firmed. 

At the same time there are other con se - 

quences that are not as easy to af firm or ad - 

dress. One of these is the so-called “dig i tal di - 

vide.” As in other as pects of life, the cost-ben e - 

fit logic dis crim i nates be tween the dig i tal 

haves and the dig i tal have nots, un der stood 

now as those who have ac cess and those who 

do not. Only when those with out ac cess de - 

velop both an eco nomic in ter est and means to 

be come fu ture ICT con sum ers or pro duc ers 

can the sit u a tion be ad dressed. 

Clearly ICTs are em bed ded in par tic u lar 

po lit i cal and cul tural realms. What is good for 

one coun try is not uni ver sally good or use ful. 

The Eu ro pean Com mu nity has its own cul tural 

and po lit i cal fea tures, which are some times 

sub tly dif fer ent from those of the United 

States. Sup port for the wel fare state, for in - 

stance, is a ba sic as sump tion of Eu ro pean pol - 

icy. More over, Eu ro pean cul tural rich ness and 

di ver sity con trast sharply with a greater Amer - 

i can uni for mity. Al though it is dif fi cult to iden - 

tify any well-de fine ICT cul ture, there are cer - 

tainly dif fer ent kinds of vir tual and 

tech no log i cal com mu ni ties. But the two ba sic 

el e ments of so cial wel fare and cul tural di ver - 

sity must be ac knowl edged, since they are de - 

fin ing dif fer ences of the two larger cul tures 

within which ICTs ex ist. 

These two fea tures should work as ba sic pil - 

lars for any Eu ro pean ICT pol icy. A de fined 

cul tural iden tity, able to adapt tech no log i cal 

changes and in no va tions, should be strong 

enough to gen er ate its own model for these 

tech no log i cal change. To this ex tent pol icy 

should fa vor some trends and avoid oth ers in 

the pro cess of glob al iza tion. But such po lit i cal 

ac tiv i ties must them selves rely al ways on a 

pre vi ous cul tural frame work. Civil so ci ety 

also plays a cru cial al though un planned role in 

de fin ing any model. 

Open Source, Open Com mu ni ties 

The 1990s wit nessed a grow ing philo soph i - 

cal in ter est in the idea of com mu nity. As a po - 

lit i cal phi los o phy communitarianism at tempts 

to re cover val ues erased by tech no log i cal de - 

vel op ment and the global mar ket. The gen er al - 

ized hun ger for com mu nity arises pre cisely 

be cause glob al iza tion has re moved par tic u lar 

pow ers from states and in di vid u als. In a world 

ruled by trans-na tional cor po ra tions and su - 

pra-gov ern ment or ga ni za tions such as the Eu - 

ro pean Un ion cit i zens find it dif fi cult to know 

where po lit i cal power is lo cated and how to 

deal with it. 


16

Thus a coun ter move ment arises, and ef forts 

are made to rec on cile the dif fer ent fac tors of 

mar ket forces, state, and com mu nity. So cial 

an a lysts re fer to a three-di men sional state in 

which where gov ern ment, mar ket, and com - 

mu nity col lab o rate across their dif fer ent 

realms. Only com mu nity can gen er ate value 

codes con vinc ing enough for its mem bers: sol - 

i dar ity, friend ship, and re spon si bil ity. Mar kets 

most ef fi ciently pro vide many goods and ser - 

vices. Gov ern ments are the source of laws and 

their en force ment. When gov ern ments try to 

cre ate sol i dar ity, sol i dar ity be comes cold and 

ar ti fi cial. For mar kets to of fer friend ship for 

sale is even more ab surd. But what gov ern - 

ments can do, how ever, is es tab lish oc ca sions 

for com mu ni tarian ac tion, and of fer ap pro pri - 

ate means—both eco nomic and tech no log i cal. 

The cre ation of Linex may serve as a case in 

point. 

Al though some crit ics com mu ni ties ar gue 

that com mu nity is dis ap pear ing, per haps they 

just do not know where to look. Cer tainly 

within the in for ma tion so ci ety, the sol i dar ity 

of what Pekka Himannen in The Hacker Ethic 

(1999) calls “hacktivism” is a good can di date 

for de fin ing a new kind of com mu nity. In deed, 

in his ep i log to Pekka’s book, Manuel Castells 

also points to ward the eco nomic sig nif i cance 

to the in for ma tion so ci ety of the nexus of val - 

ues shared by hack ers. And the no tion of free 

soft ware con sti tutes an at tempt to instantiate 

such val ues in tech nol ogy. 

The core val ues in this new com mu nity are, 

ac cord ing to Rich ard Stallmann, that “Com - 

puter us ers should be free to mod ify pro grams 

to fit their needs, and free to share soft ware, be - 

cause help ing other peo ple is the ba sis of so ci - 

ety” (Stallman, 1999, 54). The goal is the pres - 

er va tion of a kind of sci en tific and 

tech no log i cal free dom in the midst of hard - 

ware and soft ware that is in creas ingly de - 

signed to re strict free dom of use, mod i fi ca tion, 

and shar ing. Of the ba sic as sump tions be hind 

pro pri etary soft ware—that soft ware com pa - 

nies have a nat u ral right to own soft ware, that 

soft ware is only a means, and that soft ware 

would not ex ist with out pri vate own er ship— 

the free soft ware move ment re jects all three. 

On the ba sis of such a re jec tion free soft ware 

pro gram mers use, im prove, and share—in the 

pro cess, in ev i ta bly not just ad vance the soft - 

ware tech nol ogy but es tab lish a com mu nity of 

us ers, improvers, and shar ers. 

One of the clear est anal y ses of the spe cial 

char ac ter of soft ware is Eric Ray mond’s The 

Ca the dral and the Ba zaar (1999). For Ray - 

mond, pro pri etary soft ware is like a ca the dral, 

with its ar tic u lated hi er ar chy in side and out; 

free soft ware is more like a ba zaar, where dem - 

o cratic trad ing and bar gain ing takes place. 

Lots of peo ple have no real need for large-scale 

soft ware de signs such as the in te grated ca the - 

dral of a Win dows Op er at ing Sys tem; all they 

re ally want is a bas ket of soft ware ca pa bil i ties 

that can be cob bled to gether by pick ing up one 

thing from this shop and other from that in the 

ba zaar of pos si bil i ties. The cre ation of such a 

ba zaar be gan in the 1980s when Stallman, via 

the Internet, sum moned pro gram mers from 

around the world to set up their stalls in just 

such a high-tech ba zaar. Al though high-tech 

soft ware ar ti sans set up the ba zaar and at first 

traded only with each other, in prin ci ple and 

even tu ally the ba zaar was open to any one, and 

its in ter ac tions be gan to give life to a new kind 

of com mu nity—or, more ac cu rately, to pre - 

serve and en large a com mu nity of hack ers that 

had been on the verge of dy ing. 

The GNU/Linux Con text 

Al though the very idea of free soft ware 

made its ini tial ap pear ance in the in di vid u al ist, 

mar ket-dom i nated United States, one might 

rea son ably ar gue that its nat u ral home is in fact 

the cul ture of Eu rope with its em pha sis on re - 

gional sol i dar i ties and iden ti ties. Cer tainly it 

was in Eu rope dur ing the late 1990s that Linux 

and Debian (two free or open source op er at ing 

sys tems) made the jump from be ing some thing 

for nerds or techies to be come op tions for in de - 

pend ently ex ist ing com mu ni ties and sup - 

ported by gov ern men tal in sti tu tions. 

The free and open source his tory may be 

sum ma rized in terms of four piv otal events. 

The first was Stallman’s 1983 “GNU Man i - 

festo” and his sub se quent work. Stallman had 

be come con vinced of the vir tues of the hacker 

cul ture of shared skills and en ergy that had 

grown up at Stan ford, Berke ley, Car ne gie 

Mellon, MIT, and other re search cen ters dur - 

ing the 1950s and 1960s. But as a pro gram mer 

at the MIT Com puter Lab he found him self 

forced to wit ness on slaughts against this cul - 

ture as soft ware was in creas ingly pri vat ized. In 

re sponse, Stallman called for cre ation of a new 

op er at ing sys tem he called GNU (stand ing for 


17

“Gnu’s Not Unix”) and a de fense of the pub lic 

shar ing of soft ware and source code. 

The next year Stallman re signed from MIT 

in or der to as sure that the uni ver sity had no 

claim on his cre ation. In 1985 he es tab lished 

the Free Soft ware Foun da tion to sup port his 

and oth ers’ work. And in 1989 he cre ated the 

GNU Gen eral Pub lic Li cense (GPL) that de - 

fines “copyleft” protections. This pro to col al - 

lows any one to freely use, mod ify, and dis trib - 

ute copyleft soft ware, but pro hib its them from 

copy right ing it or any mod i fi ca tions they 

might make to it. The GPL keeps GNU in the 

pub lic do main. 

In 1990 Stallman was awarded a Mac Ar thur 

Fel low ship and be gan work on a GNU ker nel 

called HURD. The next year, still some way to 

go on this task, a sec ond de fin ing event took 

place: Linus Torvalds, a twenty-two year old 

grad u ate stu dent at the Uni ver sity of Hel sinki, 

of fered his own in com plete ker nel called 

Linux (for Linus+ Unix). 

It is cru cial to rec og nize that free soft ware is 

not, in all senses, free. A lot of work goes into 

cre at ing the soft ware, and there are sig nif i cant 

costs (as with pro pri etary soft ware) in its ad ap - 

ta tion, in stal la tion, and main te nance. As 

Stallman suc cinctly puts it, with re gard to free 

soft ware: “Think free speech, not free beer.” 

What is free is the abil ity to ac cess the source 

code of an op er at ing sys tem or ap pli ca tions 

pack age, thus be ing able to know what the 

soft ware re ally says; with the source code, 

peo ple are also free to adapt com put ers to 

speak in their own voice. 

Al though free soft ware en ables us ers to be - 

come in de pend ent of pro pri etary sup pli ers, 

there is still a need for tech ni cians to in stall, 

adapt, and ser vice free soft ware. Rec og niz ing 

this, in 1994 Marc Ew ing de cided to ex plore 

the pos si bil i ties for a new model of busi ness, 

sell ing free soft ware, and cre ated the com pany 

called Red Hat GNU/Linux to do so. This was 

the third de fin ing event in the free soft ware 

movement. 

Then year 1998 wit nessed a fourth im por - 

tant event. As back ground, Netscape an - 

nounced that it would open the source code for 

Netscape Nav i ga tor 5.0. But the cen tral mo - 

ment was when Eric Ray mond, Bruce Perens, 

Tim O’Reilly, and a few oth ers, coined a new 

term: open source soft ware. Ar gu ing both that 

there needed to be some method for cer ti fy ing 

“free soft ware” and that the ex ist ing term was 

con fus ing is sues, they es tab lished the Open 

Source Ini tia tive. Shortly af ter ward Linus 

Torvalds and Linux ap peared on the cover of 

Forbes mag a zine (Au gust 10, 1998). 

There are tech ni cal dis tinc tions be tween 

“free” and “open source” soft ware that have 

led Stallman to de cline to aban don his own 

term and work. But in prac tice the two move - 

ments com ple ment and col lab o rate with each 

other, mak ing it pos si ble for those not di rectly 

in volved to re fer to a com pound “free and open 

source soft ware move ment.” “Open source 

soft ware” (OSS) has also be come the de facto 

term of choice. 

From Linux to Linex 

So far, ex cept for Torvalds’ con tri bu tion, 

most of the OSS ac tion had taken place in the 

United States. Then in early 2002 some thing 

new hap pened in an un ex pected place: the au - 

ton o mous re gion of Extremadura in west ern 

Spain. Extremadura, with a pop u la tion of 1.1 

mil lion (out of 42.6 mil lion for Spain as a 

whole) is one of the poor est re gions of the 

coun try. At the be gin ning of the new cen tury 

the re gion was faced with the ne ces sity of in - 

stall ing soft ware pro grams for mul ti ple ad - 

min is tra tive func tions. To avoid pay ing li cens - 

ing fees that could (through re quired 

up grades) go on for ever, Luis Millan Vazquez 

de Miguel, a chem ist and Min is ter of Ed u ca - 

tion, Sci ence, and Tech nol ogy for the re gion, 

con vinced the gov ern ment to take the risk of 

go ing open source. Go ing fur ther, as so ci ates 

such as Carlos Cas tro, Luis Casas, and Jesús 

Rubio de cided to use the pro cess of ad ap ta tion 

as a re gional de vel op ment strat egy and cre ated 

Linex (Linux+Extremadura) as a new OSS op - 

er at ing sys tem. 

Linex is an easy to in stall, uni fied pack age 

that, like Microsoft Win dows, in cludes a num - 

ber of ap pli ca tions pack ages. More over, not 

only in the source code avail able for any one 

who re quests it, but the desk top has a plea sur - 

ably lo cal char ac ter. For in stance, for word 

pro cess ing, us ers click on “Brocense,” an im - 

age of the six teenth cen tury Extremaduran 

writer Fran cisco Sánchez de las Brozas. 

Extremadura then of fered to dis trib ute Linex 

free to any one who wanted to use it (), and in 

No vem ber 2002 hosted a na tional con fer ence 

to pub li cize its achieve ment. The re sults were 

also re ported in a front page story in the Wash - 

ing ton Post, No vem ber 3, 2002: “Eu rope’s 

Microsoft Al ter na tive.” 


18

But none of this came easy. The lo cal gov - 

ern ment (Junta de Extremadura) was led by a 

so cial ist party that was strug gling to fig ure out 

new ways to pro mote eco nomic growth. As so - 

cial ists they had a dif fi cult task to bal ance so - 

cial wel fare and eco nomic de vel op ment pri or i - 

ties. An em pha sis on so cial wel fare, be cause of 

the taxes on which it de pends, can some times 

be a bar rier to turbo-cap i tal ist growth; but 

with out eco nomic growth so cial wel fare may 

in the long run it self be un der mined. Faced 

with this di lemma, the so cial ists in 

Extremadura had a vi sion of ICT de vel op ment 

as a pos si ble way to bridge the di vide. 

One fac tor con trib ut ing to this vi sion was 

the re cent his tory of Spain. The tran si tion from 

dic ta tor ship into de moc racy fol low ing the 

death of Franco (1975) and the sub se quent en - 

try of Spain into the Eu ro pean Com mu nity 

(over the pe riod 1986–1993) pro vided a back - 

ground that en cour aged new think ing. And 

start ing from scratch, the so cial ists had to for - 

mu late an ap pro pri ate sci ence and tech nol ogy 

pol icy. Es pe cially af ter trade bar ri ers came 

down and Spain was forced to be come com - 

pet i tive with the rest of Eu rope, the lo cal gov - 

ern ment in Extremadura worked ac tively to 

de velop an am bi tious pro gram in re search and 

de vel op ment (R&D) that would co or di nate 

ini tia tives by uni ver sity re search ers, pri vate 

cor po ra tions, and other groups with the sup - 

port of pub lic funds. Over the pe riod from 

1998 to 2000 this plan aimed to raise R&D 

spend ing from 0.28 % of the GDP to 0.54%. 

Al though small by U.S. com par i sons (where 

R&D in vest ment is closer to 3% of GDP), the 

dou bling in Extremadura was sig nif i cant and 

ac tu ally led for the first time, for ex am ple, to 

the ap proval of nine pat ents ap proved that 

were the di rect re sult of pub lic fund ing. 

An other in flu ence con trib ut ing to the new 

sci ence and tech nol ogy pol icy in Extremadura 

was cul tural in ter est in the idea of an in for ma - 

tion so ci ety. Yet in ter est in in for ma tion so ci ety 

de vel op ment be gan at a time when con nec tiv - 

ity in Spain was about 7% (com pared with 

10% in Eu rope, 30% in the United States), so 

that es pe cially for a pri mar ily ag ri cul tural re - 

gion like Extremadura, in vest ment in ICTs 

was a real gam ble. Such un cer tain ties nev er - 

the less had their ad van tages, which made pos - 

si ble more free and imag i na tive pol icy de vel - 

op ments than those tak ing place else where. 

It was in this con text that a new Min is try of 

Ed u ca tion, Sci ence, and Tech nol ogy (or 

Consejería de Educación, Ciencia y 

Tecnología), the first such port fo lio of re spon - 

si bil i ties in a Span ish re gional gov ern ment, 

was charged with “giv ing all cit i zens com puter 

ac cess to the in fra struc ture and ser vices of - 

fered by the in for ma tional so ci ety and pro mot - 

ing tech no log i cal lit er acy for peo ple in both 

cit ies and vil lages.” The min is try saw three 

main ar eas for ac tiv ity: in fra struc ture, tech no - 

log i cal lit er acy, and busi ness op por tu ni ties. Its 

main aim was to for mu late plans in each area, 

and the Linex ini tia tive had the ad van tage of 

cross ing bound aries. It prom ised to de velop 

tech no log i cal lit er acy, pro vide ICT soft ware 

in fra struc ture, and stim u late pri vate sec tor 

busi ness op por tu ni ties. 

Two sec ond ary school teach ers—An to nio 

Ullán (math e mat ics) and José Luis Redrejo 

(elec tron ics)—cre ated Linex for use on a new 

Extremadura intranet. The two pro gram mers 

tried to sim plify GNU/Linux to make it better 

adapted for ed u ca tional uses. The sys tem did 

not ex clude other pro pri etary soft ware but 

gave us ers the ap pli ca tions they were most 

likely to need: word pro cess ing, email man ag - 

ing, mul ti me dia pro grams, graphic con vert ers, 

and so on. Right from the be gin ning this ap - 

proach saved the re gional gov ern ment ap prox - 

i mately eigh teen mil lion dol lars in li cens ing 

fees, money that could be used to meet so cial 

needs. Be tween 1999 and 2001 the Linex op er - 

at ing sys tem was cre ated to gether with web 

pages that pro vided all kinds of pro gram sup - 

port. Free soft ware also trans lated into more 

pur chases in hard ware for high schools 

(64,000 com put ers). Fi nally, GNU/Linex rep - 

re sented an op por tu nity for busi ness de vel op - 

ment, since it cre ated a cadre of tech ni cally 

pro fi cient work ers in Extremadura. 

But as in ter est ing and im por tant as are such 

re sults, it is also cru cial to rec og nize the com - 

mu ni tarian el e ment of the GNU/Linex ef fort. 

This op er at ing sys tem not only rep re sents a 

good sci ence and tech nol ogy pol icy in vest - 

ment in the fi nan cial sense, its de vel op ment 

and use has cre ated a sense of com mu nity in at 

least two senses. First, it has cre ated a small 

group of com puter skilled pro fes sion als shar - 

ing much of the open source value sys tem. 

Sec ond, it has sup ported ever en larg ing groups 

of in ter ac tive cit i zens in Extremadura who 

take some pride in the achieve ments of a Span - 

ish re gion oth er wise of ten de scribed as un de - 

vel oped. 


19

Fi nally, Linex is also an im por tant link in 

the ed u ca tion sys tem. And its us ers show some 

ev i dence of tak ing an ac tive at ti tude and crit i - 

cal to ward their com put ers rather than sim ply 

play ing the role of pas sive con sum ers of a for - 

eign cor po rate prod uct. The gam ble on the fu - 

ture may be pay ing off in more ways that one. 

Conclusion: Priming the Pump 

What the gov ern ment of Extremadura did 

can be summed up in a phrase used by the ad - 

min is tra tion of U.S. Pres i dent Frank lin Delano 

Roo se velt to de scribe its own re sponses to the 

eco nomic cri sis of 1929: prim ing the pump. 

The Junta had pre vi ously pro moted de vel op - 

ment of a com mu ni ca tion in fra struc ture (the 

intranet in Extremadura), and with the de vel - 

op ment of Linex it con fronted an other big util - 

ity is sue, sys tem soft ware. Both steps were 

sim i lar. Al though the writ ing of soft ware is not 

some thing that just any one can do, Linex does 

cre ate the ba sis for a soft ware com mu nity in 

Extremadura. Draw ing on the work of the preex 

ist ing free soft ware move ment, the Junta 

cre ated a new sys tem that both saves costs and 

pro motes a lo cal com mu ni tarian de vel op ment 

(im ple ment ing the sys tem in its own com put - 

ers). 

From a com mu nity de vel op ment per spec - 

tive, the sec ond point is more im por tant, since 

it con sti tutes of fi cial sup port against big soft - 

ware com pa nies. Now us ers can de velop their 

own ways of internet par tic i pa tion and ICT 

use. Per haps this re sult was un in tended and the 

suc cess un ex pected. Yet bet ting on com mu ni - 

tarian ef forts and pro vid ing com puter tools for 

cit i zen use was nev er the less part of the orig i nal 

in spi ra tion among many of those who worked 

on Linex. Prim ing the pump can be more than 

eco nomic—it can be po lit i cal and cul tural as 

well. 

REFERENCES 

Alonso, Andoni, and IZaki Arzoz. (2003) Basque 

Cyberculture: From Dig i tal Euskadi to 

CyberEuskalerria. Reno: Uni ver sity of Ne vada Press. 

Castells, Manuel. (2001) La Galaxia Internet. 

Baqrcelona: Plaza y Janés. 

Gates, Bill. (1999) Busi ness @ the Speed of Thought: Us - 

ing a Dig i tal Ner vous Sys tem. With Col lins Hem ing - 

way. New York: Warner Books. 

Gray, Chris Hables. (2002) Cy borg Cit i zens: Pol i tics in 

the Posthuman Age. New York: Routledge. 

Himanen, Pekka. (2001) The Hacker Ethic: A Rad i cal 

Ap proach to the Phi los o phy of Busi ness. New York: 

Random House. 

Negroponte, Nicholas. (1996) Being Digital. Cam bridge, 

MA: MIT Press. 

Ray mond, Eric S. (1999) The Ca the dral and the Ba zaar: 

Mus ings on Linux and Open Source by an Ac ci den tal 

Rev o lu tion ary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. 

Schwartz, Evan I. (1999) Digital Darwinism. New York: 

Random House. 

Stallman, Rich ard. (1999) “The GNU Op er at ing Sys tem 

and the Free Soft ware Move ment,” in Chris DiBona, 

Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: 

Voices from the Open Source Rev o lu tion (Sebastopol, 

CA: O’Reilly), pp. 53-XX 

Web ster, Frank. (2002) The o ries of the In for ma tion So ci - 

ety. Lon don: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

WEBOGRAPHY 

www.linex.org 

www.extremadurasi.org 

www.juntaex.es/consejerias/ect/dgsi 

www.fundecyt.es 

www.hispalinux.es 


20

SCI ENCE, DE MOC RACY, AND STEM CELLS 

Eric Co hen 

It is rarely a com pli ment to be ac cused of 

“po lit i ciz ing sci ence.” But the term it self has at 

least two mean ings—one neg a tive and one 

pos i tive: The first mean ing in volves dis tort ing 

sci en tific facts or sci en tific ev i dence to pro - 

mote one’s own ide ol ogy or agenda. The temp - 

ta tion to en gage in such a prac tice ex ists (and 

some times pre vails) on all sides of the po lit i cal 

spec trum: en vi ron men tal ac tiv ists tempted to 

ex ag ger ate the threat of global warm ing; in - 

dus try ad vo cates tempted to down play the eco - 

log i cal ef fects of oil ex plo ra tion; pro-life ac - 

tiv ists tempted to over-hype the prom ise of 

adult stem cells; em bryo re search ad vo cates 

tempted to prom ise cures for dreaded dis eases 

based only on pre lim i nary an i mal ex per i - 

ments. Such “politicization” is rightly con - 

demned by re spon si ble peo ple on all sides. 

The sec ond mean ing of “po lit i ciz ing sci - 

ence,” how ever, is not a prob lem but a ne ces - 

sity. Pol i tics, rightly un der stood, is the ac tiv ity 

of or der ing our life to gether, and in so far as sci - 

ence both af fects and de pends on civic life, it is 

rightly a po lit i cal is sue. In deed, all dem o cratic 

so ci et ies need to de bate the rel a tive im por - 

tance of dif fer ent sci en tific pro jects (e.g., cur - 

ing AIDS vs. go ing to Mars), the rel a tive risks 

and ben e fits of cer tain ar eas of sci en tific re - 

search (e.g., cre at ing ar ti fi cial vi ruses), or the 

eth i cal di lem mas of pro ceed ing or not pro - 

ceed ing with cer tain types of ex per i ments 

(e.g., em bry onic stem cells). Sci ence alone 

can not an swer the types of ques tions that sci - 

ence sets be fore us, and a self-gov ern ing peo - 

ple must gov ern the di rec tion of sci ence, es pe - 

cially (but not only) when cit i zens are pay ing 

the bills. 

The chal lenge, there fore, is to avoid po lit i - 

ciz ing sci en tific facts while en gag ing in po lit i - 

cal de bates about sci ence. This chal lenge is 

made even greater by the com plex i ties and un - 

cer tain ties that are in trin sic to most ar eas of ad - 

vanced sci ence. Af ter all, we do not know the 

sci en tific truth while we are look ing for it; the 

very need for “re search” sug gests the re al ity of 

un cer tainty; and the his tory of sci ence is filled 

with ex am ples of sci en tific “com mon sense” 

be ing turned on its head. The sci en tific facts 

are some times hazy not be cause of will ful dis - 

tor tion but be cause of hon est dis agree ment. 

And so it is not only cit i zens and states man 

who ar gue about the role of sci ence in so ci ety, 

but the sci en tists them selves who ar gue about 

what is true, what will work, and what is most 

im por tant in their own sci en tific fields. These 

two de bates take place side by side, some times 

in form ing and some times de form ing one an - 

other. 

Since the late 1990s, the de bate over em bry - 

onic stem cell re search has been cen tral to this 

larger de bate about sci ence and Amer i can de - 

moc racy. The de bate has been very po lem i cal 

at times—with re search ad vo cates claim ing 

the man tle of Ga li leo in de mand ing more fed - 

eral fund ing and fewer reg u la tions, and re - 

search op po nents claim ing that em bryo re - 

search will lead Amer ica to ward a “brave new 

world” or “cul ture of death” (McDermott, 

2001; Connor, 2001). On bal ance, how ever, 

the stem cell de bate has been an im pres sive 

and im por tant one. It is rare that Amer ica dis - 

cusses such deep ques tions in such a se ri ous 

way—ques tions about hu man na ture, hu man 

or i gins, the as pi ra tions of med i cal re search, 

and the char ac ter of the good so ci ety. This is, 

in the deep est sense, what the stem cell de bate 

is all about. We are dis cuss ing the small est hu - 

man thing—the hu man em bryo—which sets 

be fore us the big gest hu man ques tions (Co hen, 

2003a). And by study ing the char ac ter of this 

par tic u lar de bate, one can dis cern many of the 

deeper di lem mas that lie at the cross roads be - 

tween mod ern sci ence and mod ern de moc racy. 

I will dis cuss three things: First, I’ll try to 

ex plain briefly how em bry onic stem cells be - 

came an is sue of great pub lic im por tance, and 

how it is burst into na tional con scious ness in 

2001. Sec ond, I’ll ex plore why this de bate is 

uniquely im por tant to the fu ture of Amer i can 

life and Amer i can pol i tics, and es pe cially to 

the mean ing of our own most cher ished ide als. 

And fi nally, I will try to give an over view of the 

de bate it self: what are the ar gu ments, who are 

the ac tors, what do they be lieve, and why do 

they be lieve it. In do ing so, I will at tempt to 

draw out the larger hu man themes—such as 

the na ture of rea son, the mean ing of equal ity, 


21

and the di lem mas of prog ress—that lie na scent 

in the em bryo re search de bate. 

The Or i gins of the Stem Cell De bate 

The first ques tion is sim ply how did we get 

here. If one can re mem ber back to the 2000 

elec tion, one re calls that the stem cell ques tion 

was never even dis cussed. But then sud denly, 

in the first few months of the Bush pres i dency, 

stem cells be came the de fin ing po lit i cal is sue 

in the coun try, a front-page story ev ery day for 

many months, in clud ing the front-page of the 

ma jor news pa pers on Sep tem ber 11 (Stolberg, 

2001). 

But the story of stem cells goes back much 

fur ther, and the story of hu man em bry onic 

stem cells be gins in ear nest in the 1960s and 

1970s, when Rob ert Ed wards be gan his quest 

to treat in fer til ity by con ceiv ing hu man em - 

bryos in the lab o ra tory. His goal in pro duc ing 

em bryos out side the body was to pro duce a hu - 

man child. But even then he re al ized that there 

would be other pos si bil i ties, sci en tific pos si - 

bil i ties, hav ing noth ing to do with fer til ity at 

all. This is how Ed wards put it in 1980: 

Will we be able to ex tract the stem cells of var i - 

ous or gans from the em bryo, the pre cious foun - 

da tion cells of all the body’s or gans and then use 

them ther a peu ti cally? Will it ever be pos si ble to 

use the cells to cor rect de fi cien cies in other hu - 

man be ings—to re place one de fi cient tis sue 

with an other that func tions nor mally? For in - 

stance, will we be able to use the blood-form ing 

cells of an em bryo to re-col o nize de fec tive 

blood-form ing tis sue in an adult or child? And 

will these no tions be met with pursed lips and 

frown ing faces? (Ed wards and Steptoe, 1980, 

186–87) 

When Rob ert Ed wards pro duced the first hu - 

man em bryo out side the hu man body, we en - 

tered a new era in eth ics, in sci ence, and in pol - 

i tics. For the first time, we be held our own 

or i gins di rectly; we saw what was never be fore 

seen with hu man eyes; we held what was never 

be fore held with hu man hands. Many cou ples 

who might never have had chil dren of their 

own were now able to do so through in vi tro 

fer til iza tion. But we also opened the door, for 

better or for worse, to uses of hu man em bryos 

that have noth ing to do with giv ing life to a 

new per son, but rather with sav ing or im prov - 

ing the life of an ex ist ing one. 

In the years that fol lowed, re search pro - 

ceeded on hu man em bryos and an i mal em bry - 

onic cells—cul mi nat ing in the an nounce ment, 

in 1998, of the iso la tion of the first hu man em - 

bry onic stem cells (Thomson et al., 1998). 

This was an other mo men tous event—sci en tif - 

i cally, eth i cally, and po lit i cally. 

Since 1996, there has been a ban on the fed - 

eral fund ing of re search in volv ing the de struc - 

tion of hu man em bryos (Pres i dent’s Coun cil 

on Bioethics, 2004, 25–28). Spe cif i cally, Con - 

gress (not the pres i dent, as is of ten be lieved in 

this case) passed a law en act ing such a fund ing 

ban, which it has re-en acted ev ery year since 

then. This law does not ban all em bryo re - 

search, just pub lic or tax payer money for em - 

bryo re search. In the pri vate sec tor, em bryo re - 

search and em bryo de struc tion pro ceeds, if not 

as quickly or as of ten as it would with NIH sup - 

port. 

To ward the end of his pres i dency, Pres i dent 

Clinton sought a way to get around the con - 

gres sio nal ban on fed eral fund ing. He cre ated 

new guide lines that would fund re search on 

em bry onic stem cell lines, so long as the em - 

bryo de struc tion it self was not done with pub - 

lic funds (Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics, 

2004, 191–97). This would up hold the tech ni - 

cal mean ing of the law, but ar gu ably not the 

spirit; and it would open up new funds for em - 

bry onic stem cell re search where they never 

ex isted be fore. The move spawned much re ac - 

tion from in sid ers—es pe cially re search ad vo - 

cates and pro-life groups—but it did not spark 

a big na tional de bate. 

Be fore the guide lines were ever im ple - 

mented, Pres i dent Bush came to of fice in 

2001, and or dered a re view of the Clinton 

changes. Out of no where—or seem ingly no - 

where—a great na tional de bate be gan. The 

spe cific ques tion was this: Should there be fed - 

eral fund ing for em bry onic stem cell re search? 

But the is sues were much deeper, and the de - 

bate much broader: What do we owe to na scent 

hu man life—es pe cially na scent hu man life 

cre ated in the lab o ra tory? What do we owe 

those who suf fer from ter ri ble dis ease —dis - 

eases that might one day be cured if em bry onic 

stem cell re search pro ceeds apace? And what 

do we owe to so ci ety as a whole? What kind of 

peo ple are we, and what kind of civ i li za tion do 

we want to live in? (Pres i dent’s Coun cil on 

Bioethics, 2002, 117–71) 

On Au gust 9, 2001, Pres i dent Bush de liv - 

ered a spe cial ad dress to the na tion to an - 


22

nounce his new stem cell pol icy (Pres i dent’s 

Coun cil on Bioethics, 2004, 183–87). The 

NIH would fund re search on ex ist ing stem cell 

lines—where the de struc tion of em bryos has 

al ready taken place, and thus can not be un - 

done. But it would not fund re search that in - 

volved fu ture em bryo de struc tion—since to do 

so would cre ate a pub lic in cen tive and en - 

dorse ment of more em bryo de struc tion. It was 

the first time that any em bry onic stem cell re - 

search would get pub lic fund ing. But it was not 

fund ing with out lim its. It was fund ing within 

lim its. It aimed to give pub lic sup port for this 

sig nif i cant new area of sci ence, while at the 

same time re spect ing the moral views of those 

who do not be lieve that em bryos should be 

used as a sci en tific re source, no mat ter how 

use ful they may be. 

To day, the de bate con tin ues both about the 

sci en tific prom ise of em bry onic stem cell re - 

search and about the pub lic pol icy that should 

gov ern this con tro ver sial area of sci ence. 

Some seek a much more per mis sive pol icy, 

and fear that we are greatly lim it ing a rev o lu - 

tion ary new area of bio med i cal re search by not 

ad e quately fund ing it. Oth ers seek a more re - 

stric tive pol icy, be liev ing that we should ban 

all em bryo re search, in clud ing that which is 

funded by the pri vate sec tor. The de bate has fu - 

eled ex ces sive at tacks and coun ter at tacks (the 

politicization of sci ence in its worst form) and 

se ri ous re flec tion and de lib er a tion (the 

politicization of sci ence in its best form). 

The Moral and Political Significance of the 

Stem Cell De bate 

This leads me to my sec ond ques tion: Why 

is the stem cell de bate so im por tant? What 

does it mean for the fu ture of Amer i can life, 

Amer i can pol i tics, and Amer i can so ci ety as a 

whole? Let me sug gest four rea sons why this 

de bate is sig nif i cant, be yond the ob vi ous sig - 

nif i cance of seek ing to cure ter ri ble hu man dis - 

eases. 

First, the stem cell de bate is im por tant be - 

cause it is, along with the war on ter ror, the 

only other de bate in Amer i can life that raises 

gen u ine ex is ten tial ques tions. In deed, one is 

struck by the way the bioethics is sues and the 

war on ter ror ism both came to dom i nate our 

pub lic life at the same time—with Pres i dent 

Bush’s stem cell speech de liv ered on Au gust 9; 

the hor ri ble at tacks a month later on Sep tem - 

ber 11. Both of these chal lenges have de - 

manded a new moral and po lit i cal se ri ous ness; 

both raise ques tions about life and death, about 

the pros pects for hu man hap pi ness in mod ern 

de moc ra cies, and es pe cially about our idea of 

the good life and good so ci ety. The bioethics 

de bate—and bio tech nol ogy it self—is driven 

by our dreams of greater health and better 

lives; by our quest for greater con trol over the 

course of life from birth to death; and by the 

be lief that our biotechnical in ge nu ity might 

even tu ally con quer the worst hu man dis eases. 

And yet, the war on ter ror re minds us of the 

mor tal fra gil ity of life, and the per ma nent bur - 

dens of his tory that bio tech nol ogy alone will 

not likely con quer. Taken to gether, these are 

the two great de bates of our time. And this psy - 

cho log i cal disjunction—a golden age of health 

and prog ress, a dark age of fear and de struc - 

tion—is ar gu ably the de fin ing char ac ter is tic of 

our age (Co hen, 2003b). 

The sec ond rea son why the stem cell de bate 

is so im por tant is that it forces Amer ica to ar - 

gue about the mean ing of its own ide als—es - 

pe cially the Amer i can idea of equal ity. To 

many op po nents of em bryo re search, the em - 

bryo is “one of us”—small, weak, with dif fer - 

ent ap pear ance, and yet an in di vid ual hu man 

life in pro cess (Pres i dent’s Coun cil on 

Bioethics, 2002, 258–76 and 288–91). It is 

what all of us looked like at this stage of our ex - 

is tence. To deny le gal protections to hu man 

em bryos, some ar gue, is to un der mine the 

Amer i can com mit ment to equal ity. It is to 

make our hu man ity con di tional—de pend ent 

on be ing big enough, or strong enough, or 

healthy enough, or con scious enough. 

And yet, it is the pros pect of mak ing men 

and women more equal that makes many em - 

bry onic stem cell sup port ers see such re search 

as a moral im per a tive. They see a child who is 

un fairly sick, and they want to cure him so he 

might have a fair chance at a full life. They see 

bi o log i cal in equal i ties—the in equal ity of hav - 

ing a dis ease like ju ve nile di a be tes—and they 

seek to use our bi o log i cal cre ativ ity and ex per - 

i men tal pow ers to pur sue med i cal jus tice 

where fate, or genes, or both has de nied it. This 

re turns us to one of the fun da men tal pre mises 

of Amer i can life: What does it mean to say that 

“all men are cre ated equal?” And what is the 

role of sci ence in prov ing, pro duc ing, or un - 

der min ing such equal ity? Does mod ern em - 

bry ol ogy “prove” the equal ity of hu man em - 

bryos? Does em bryo re search prom ise to give 

a more equal life to those born with ge netic in - 


23

equal i ties? These are very big ques tions raised 

by the small est hu man or gan isms. And they 

are ques tions that re quire bi o log i cal un der - 

stand ing, but also philo soph i cal re flec tion that 

goes be yond the field of bi ol ogy it self. 

The third rea son why the stem cell de bate is 

im por tant is that it re veals and ag gra vates 

some of the fun da men tal di vides within Amer - 

i can pol i tics—and may lead to a fun da men tal 

po lit i cal trans for ma tion or re align ment 

(Kristol and Co hen, 2002, 246–49). Most in - 

ter est ing are the di vides within the two par ties: 

be tween lib er tar i ans and so cial con ser va tives 

on the Re pub li can right, and be tween nat u ral - 

ists and qual ity-of-life lib er als on the Dem o - 

cratic left. Nat u ral ists and so cial con ser va tives 

see em bryo re search as a vi o la tion of the nat u - 

ral or der; they see em bryo re search as an ex - 

ploi ta tion of the vul ner a ble—as an ig no ble 

act, if for a no ble pur pose. Lib er tar ian con ser - 

va tives and qual ity-of-life lib er als, by con trast, 

see em bryo re search as a boon to sci en tific 

free dom and to the moral im per a tive to heal the 

sick. On this is sue, in other words, some of our 

nor mal al li ances re con fig ure. And this might 

be, over the long-term, a sign of things to 

come. We may soon find our selves ask ing: 

What is a lib eral? What is a con ser va tive? And 

we may find that our new con fu sion—and new 

an swers—may largely take shape around the 

ques tion of em bry onic stem cells in par tic u lar 

and the ques tion of sci en tific prog ress in 

general. 

The fourth (and fi nal) rea son why this de - 

bate is so im por tant is that em bryo re search 

touches di rectly on hu man or i gins—on the 

way we all come into the world. The is sue here 

is not sim ply the moral sta tus of the em bryo, 

and not sim ply the eth ics of em bryo de struc - 

tion. The is sue is also that by ex per i ment ing 

with life at its ear li est stages, we may gain new 

pow ers and new in sights into hu man de vel op - 

ment. We may gain some ca pac ity to change, 

in the fu ture, the very char ac ter of our ge netic 

her i tage. Al ready, we can con tem plate the 

pros pect of pro duc ing hu man clones, and al - 

ready we have pro duced chil dren with genes 

from three dif fer ent par ents (Hwang et al. 

2004; Barritt et al., 2001). There is also re - 

search un der way that in volves hy brid man-an - 

i mal em bryos, and that in volves pro duc ing 

em bryos with mixed gen ders (Chen et al. 

2003; Gleicher et al., 2003). Much of this re - 

search is sci en tif i cally very in ter est ing and 

very prom is ing. But it also raises moral ques - 

tions about how far we should go in al ter ing 

our ge netic na ture. It gives us new pow ers we 

never be fore pos sessed. And it re minds us of 

the great re spon si bil ity that co mes with ini ti at - 

ing hu man life in the lab o ra tory, since all of 

these pros pects de pend on our ca pac ity to see, 

study, and ma nip u late hu man em bryos out side 

the body. 

And so for these four rea sons—the mean ing 

of mor tal ity and prog ress, the mean ing of 

Amer ica’s most cher ished ide als, the shake-up 

of Amer i can po lit i cal life, and the pros pect of 

un der stand ing and al ter ing hu man or i gins— 

the stem cell de bate is deeply sig nif i cant. 

Four Phi los o phies of Em bryo Re search 

And this brings me to my fi nal sub ject: 

What are the ma jor po si tions and ma jor ar gu - 

ments in the stem cell de bate? Who be lieves 

what and why? And what does the stem cell 

de bate re veal about the re la tion ship be tween 

sci ence and de moc racy more broadly? There 

are four gen eral po si tions in the em bryo re - 

search de bate: (1) “Let’s roll” sci en tists; (2) 

“en light ened lib er als”; (3) “mys te ri ous mod - 

er ates”; and (4) “one of us” con ser va tives. (At 

the April 25, 2002, meet ing of the Pres i dent’s 

Coun cil on Bioethics, Leon Kass sug gested a 

typology of four po si tions on the eth ics of 

clon ing-for-bio med i cal re search with which 

the pres ent typology, though dis tinct, over - 

laps.) These cat e go ries are, of course, over sim - 

pli fi ca tions, as all typologies are. The moral 

ar gu ments on these is sues are very com plex— 

as com plex, one should say, as the un der ly ing 

sci ence. And the po lit i cal ar gu ments are not al - 

ways gov erned by in tel lec tual con sis tency, 

since other pres sures, not sim ply ideas, al ways 

shape the re al i ties of po lit i cal life. But nev er - 

the less, I hope an over view of these four po si - 

tions will clar ify things a bit. 

(1) The “Let’s roll” po si tion is held mostly 

by re search sci en tists and re search ad vo cates 

who are ea ger to make ex per i men tal ad vances, 

ea ger to find cures, and ea ger to pro mote ba sic 

sci ence (Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics, 

2002, 255–57). This po si tion is driven by two 

ba sic im per a tives: the right to sci en tific free - 

dom and the prom ise of bio med i cal tech nol - 

ogy to re lieve man’s es tate. It be lieves that pol - 

i tics should have lit tle or no role in de cid ing 

the na tional re search agenda, and what it seeks 

from gov ern ment is more money and less reg u - 

la tion. On the ques tion of the moral stand ing of 


24

hu man em bryos—the em bryos they ea gerly 

seek to use for re search—those in the “Let’s 

roll” camp see no spe cial moral con cern at all. 

They see em bryos as a “clump of cells” with 

great sci en tific value but no spe cial moral 

stand ing; they should be treated with only the 

same mea sure of re spect that we treat any hu - 

man tis sue and no more. In the deep est sense, 

this group be lieves in the un fet tered pur suit of 

hu man knowl edge, and in their own ca pac ity 

to dis cover bi o log i cal truths that are both in tel - 

lec tu ally in ter est ing in-them selves and po ten - 

tially use ful for mil lions of pa tients. 

(2) The sec ond gen eral po si tion in this de - 

bate is “en light ened lib er al ism.” This po si tion 

shares many of the same goals and as pi ra tions 

as the re search sci en tists: the de sire to find 

cures and ease suf fer ing; to pro mote ba sic sci - 

en tific re search; and to im prove the gen eral 

wel fare of so ci ety. But this group thinks more 

po lit i cally than most sci en tists do; it thinks 

more about so ci ety than re search; and its in ter - 

ests are more ex plic itly eth i cal. It gets its selfworth 

not from do ing sci ence, but from de - 

fend ing the sci en tific pro ject, and mak ing sure 

that sci en tific prog ress con forms to the ide als 

of au ton omy and equal ity that en light ened lib - 

er als hold dear. This group be lieves that sci en - 

tists should be largely free to do their work, but 

that cer tain min i mal reg u la tions (like in - 

formed con sent) need to be en acted into law. It 

vig or ously sup ports em bry onic stem cell re - 

search, and be lieves that most ef forts to curb 

med i cal sci ence are “re li gious” in fringe ments 

on the sep a ra tion of church and state. It ac - 

knowl edges that peo ple dis agree about the 

moral sta tus of hu man em bryos, but it be lieves 

this dis agree ment should not pre vent the gov - 

ern ment from fund ing such re search. More 

deeply, en light ened lib er als see im prov ing 

health and qual ity of life as per haps the cen tral 

po lit i cal en ter prise. And thus they be lieve that 

the state has a ma jor role to play in shap ing the 

di rec tion of med i cal prog ress. Taken to gether, 

en light ened lib er al ism tries to con nect the 

grand aims of mod ern sci ence to the grand 

aims of mod ern dem o cratic pol i tics, and it dis - 

misses op po si tion to em bryo re search as un en - 

light ened re li gi os ity—to be tol er ated as a pri - 

vate mat ter of opin ion, but with no place in 

set ting na tional policy. 

(3) The third po si tion is per haps the most 

com plex. It com bines an ac count of our en - 

coun ter with the ex vivo hu man em bryo and a 

sen si bil ity about the need for mod er a tion in 

pol i tics. This group be lieves that the em bryo is 

a mys tery, and a sig nif i cant one (Co hen, 

2003a). Em bryos are not ob vi ously “one of 

us,” and not nec es sar ily de serv ing of equal 

pro tec tion un der the law. And yet, the hu man 

em bryo is not to be treated as a mere thing; it is 

a com plete hu man or gan ism at the ear li est 

stage of de vel op ment; it is a life in po ten tial 

and in pro cess. Those who hold this po si tion 

of ten ar gue that the mys tery of the em bryo— 

its com bi na tion of great sig nif i cance and un - 

cer tain stand ing—should in cline us to act with 

re straint. On pol icy ques tions, this group both 

seeks to cham pion med i cal prog ress and to 

main tain im por tant moral pa ram e ters gov ern - 

ing that prog ress. It might tol er ate re search on 

em bryos al ready cre ated, frozen, and left-over 

in fer til ity clin ics, but it be lieves that we 

should never pro duce an em bryo solely for the 

pur pose of re search and de struc tion. And it 

won ders what kind of so ci ety we might be - 

come if we use “the seeds of the next gen er a - 

tion” to profit our own (Kass, 2002). In a 

deeper sense, this group rec og nizes that the 

choices be fore us in this de bate are ul ti mately 

tragic: to use na scent hu man life as a raw ma te - 

rial or to slow down an area of sci ence that 

might ease suf fer ing and cure dis ease. In the 

end, it seeks a mod er ate course—some re - 

search, some lim its—even if the lim its mean 

that we will not ex plore ev ery sci en tific av e - 

nue. The no blest end, af ter all, does not jus tify 

any means. And the hu man em bryo, while 

mys te ri ous, is a mys tery that de mands our rev - 

er ence and respect. 

(4) The fi nal po si tion in this de bate is the 

“one of us” po si tion — the be lief that em bryos 

are full hu man be ings at the ear li est stages of 

life, and that we owe them the same mea sure of 

re spect and pro tec tion that we af ford to all vul - 

ner a ble per sons: whether in fants, the sick, the 

dis abled, or the in firm (Pres i dent’s Coun cil on 

Bioethics, 2002, 290). While cur ing suf fer ing 

is a moral good, it is not the high est moral 

good—which is to re spect all hu man life fully 

and equally. Many in this group are peo ple of 

re li gious faith. Yet, they do not ground their 

eth i cal ar gu ment sim ply in re li gious teach - 

ing—but in moral rea son and mod ern bi ol ogy. 

They ar gue that there is an un bro ken bi o log i cal 

con ti nu ity from con cep tion, to the em bry onic 

stage, to the fe tal stage, to birth and be yond. 

These are all stages in an in di vid ual hu man life 

(Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics, 2002, 258– 

66). And thus if we be lieve in hu man equal ity, 


25

then stop ping such de vel op ment at any 

point—by de stroy ing hu man em bryos for their 

stem cells—is mor ally in de fen si ble. On the 

pol icy ques tion, this group be lieves we should 

stop all em bryo re search, not just ban fed eral 

fund ing. It be lieves that med i cal prog ress is a 

no ble cause, but that it must be gov erned by an 

even higher moral ob li ga tion: re spect for the 

sanc tity and dig nity of ev ery hu man life. 

The Di lem mas of Prog ress 

Step ping back, there is much here to dis en - 

tan gle—both about stem cells in par tic u lar and 

the in ter sec tion of sci ence and de moc racy in 

gen eral. In ter est ingly, all sides in the stem cell 

de bate are prone to de spair: Those who sup - 

port stem cell re search be lieve we are los ing 

time and los ing ground be cause of in suf fi cient 

fund ing and mis guided pol i tics. They see great 

sci en tific prom ise, and they can not stand the 

fact that there are “un sci en tific” bar ri ers stand - 

ing in the way. The moral im per a tive, they say, 

is to seek knowl edge and find cures. The ban 

on fed eral fund ing is a dark cloud over this 

mission. 

At the same time, those who op pose em bryo 

re search be lieve we have en tered the Brave 

New World—with more and more em bryo de - 

struc tion tak ing place by the day, with our re - 

spect for life erod ing with ev ery new prom ise 

of a cure, and with lit tle pos si bil ity of en act ing 

a fed eral ban on em bryo re search. They see a 

cul ture that in creas ingly treats the most vul - 

ner a ble form of hu man life as a mere thing, and 

a so ci ety that seeks to profit from mor ally re - 

pug nant ex per i ments. 

For now, the pros pect of any great con sen - 

sus seems un likely. All we can do is mud dle 

along, ar gu ing in the way dem o cratic so ci et ies 

do, seek ing to con vince our op po nents and re - 

main hon est our selves. All pol i tics is ul ti - 

mately an ar gu ment about the good life and 

good so ci ety — mat ters that nat u ral sci ence by 

it self can never set tle. More over, the search for 

the truths of na ture is not the only goal of mod - 

ern so ci et ies, and when it con flicts with other 

goals and val ues, the pol i tics of sci ence is at its 

most pointed and pro found. It is these ba sic di - 

lem mas that lie at the heart of the stem cell de - 

bate: Will we be come a better so ci ety or a 

lesser so ci ety if we en gage in em bryo re - 

search? This is a ques tion about sci ence, but 

not sim ply a sci en tific ques tion. For in the end, 

only eth i cal re flec tion and po lit i cal de lib er a - 

tion can de cide when good sci ence is truly 

good. 

REFERENCES 

Barritt, J. et al. (2001) “Cy to plas mic Trans fer in As sisted 

Re pro duc tion,” Hu man Re pro duc tion Up date 7: 428– 

35. 

Chen, Y., et al. (2003) “Em bry onic Stem Cells Gen er ated 

by Trans fer of Hu man So matic Nu clei into Rab bit 

Oocytes,” Cell Re search 12: 251–64. 

Co hen, Eric. (2003a) “Of Em bryos and Em pire,” The 

New Atlantis (Sum mer): 3–16. 

Co hen, Eric. (2003b) “Bioethics in War time,” The New 

Atlantis (Fall): 23–33. 

Connor, Ken neth L. (2001) “Stem Cells: Bush’s Bro ken 

Prom ise,” Wash ing ton Post (Au gust 11), A21. 

Ed wards, Rob ert, and Pat rick Steptoe. (1980) A Mat ter of 

Life. New York: Wil liam Mor row. 

Gleicher, N., et al. (2003) “Blastomere trans plan ta tion as 

a pos si ble treat ment,” pre sented at the 19 th An nual Meet - 

ing of the Eu ro pean So ci ety of Hu man Re pro duc tion 

and Em bry ol ogy (June 29 to July 2), Ma drid, Spain 

(www.eshre.com). 

Hwang, W.S., et al. (2004) “Ev i dence of a Pluripotent 

Hu man Em bry onic Stem Cell Line De rived from a 

Cloned Hu man Blastocyst,” Sci ence Ex press, 

doi:10.1126/sci ence.1094515. 

Kass, Leon. (2002) Quoted in the tran script of July 11, 

2002, meet ing of the Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics. 

www.bioethics.gov. 

Kristol, Wil liam, and Eric Co hen. (2002) The Fu ture is 

Now: Amer ica Con fronts the New Ge net ics. Lanham, 

MD: Rowman and Littlefield Pub lisher Inc. 

McDermott, Jim. (2001) Con gres sio nal Re cord (July 31), 

H4922. 

Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics. (2002) Hu man Clon ing 

and Hu man Dig nity: An Eth i cal In quiry. Wash ing ton, 

DC. 


26

Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics. (2004) Mon i tor ing 

Stem Cell Re search. Wash ing ton, DC. 

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. (2001) “Sci en tists Urge Big ger 

Sup ply of Stem Cells,” New York Times (Sep tem ber 11), 

A1. 

Thomson, J., et al. (1998) “Em bry onic Stem Cells De - 

rived from Hu man Blastocysts,” Science, 282: 1145–47. 


27

PRO LE GOM E NON TO A FU TURE HU MAN I TIES POL ICY 

Rob ert Frodeman, Adam Briggle, Erik Fisher, and Shep Ryen 

It would be folly to set up a pro gram un der 

which re search in the nat u ral sci ences and 

med i cine was ex panded at the cost of the so - 

cial sci ences, hu man i ties, and other stud ies 

so es sen tial to na tional well-be ing. 

Vannevar Bush, 

Sci ence—The End less Fron tier (1945) 

The re la tion ship be tween sci ence and so ci - 

ety to day is a trou bled one. The first, more ac a - 

demic part of the trou ble oc curs in the lit er a - 

ture of pol icy jour nals, while the sec ond has 

en gaged a wider au di ence in clud ing sci en tists, 

de ci sion mak ers, and the gen eral pub lic. The 

first con cerns sci ence pol icy re search, the sec - 

ond con cerns sci ence pol icy writ large. In the 

first case, a con tex tual move ment has taken 

root that in creas ingly com petes with a pro - 

cess-ori ented type of re search. In the sec ond 

case, the fed er ally funded re search com mu nity 

has come un der in creased so ci etal pres sure to 

show the rel e vance of the $132 bil lion slice of 

the fed eral bud get de voted to re search and de - 

vel op ment. Dan iel Sarewitz, for ex am ple, ar - 

gues that the ques tion to be asked in sci ence 

pol icy is not “How much money should we 

spend on R&D?” but rather “What ends is this 

money sup posed to serve?” (Sarewitz, 2003). 

Sim i larly, Dan iel Callahan be lieves that cur - 

rent sci en tific prac tice is mo ti vated more and 

more by the im per a tive to do re search, and less 

and less by the quest for mean ing ful, life-en - 

hanc ing knowl edge and prod ucts (Callahan, 

2003). 

The com mon prob lem play ing out in both 

cases is the break down of the be lief that sci - 

ence can pro vide un am big u ous an swers for 

pub lic de ci sion-mak ing. In cases such as the 

global warm ing grid lock dis cussed by 

Sarewitz and Pielke, de ci sion-mak ing re mains 

sty mied de spite giga bytes of sci en tific in for - 

ma tion (Sarewitz and Pielke, 2000). Evok ing 

the im age of push ing a rope, the sur feit of in - 

for ma tion about the cli mate serves to high light 

the gap be tween what sci ence of fers and what 

de ci sion mak ers need. 

Our claim is that bridg ing the gap be tween 

knowl edge and ac tion is not (pri mar ily) a mat - 

ter of pro mot ing fur ther sci en tific re search. 

Nor will it be bridged only through the type of 

ap proach found in the var i ous schools of sci - 

ence pol icy re search, which take po lit i cal ends 

and out comes as given and seek the most ef fi - 

cient way to reach them. Also needed to bridge 

the gulf be tween sci ence and its ef fec tive use is 

a bring ing of the nor ma tive and acculturating 

per spec tives of the hu man i ties to bear on pol - 

icy de bates, com ple ment ing the re search of 

both phys i cal sci en tists and sci ence pol icy re - 

search ers while help ing to reach out to the pub - 

lic. Put dif fer ently: our un der stand ing of sci - 

ence pol icy stands to gain con sid er ably if it is 

com ple mented by the de vel op ment of the field 

of hu man i ties pol icy (Frodeman et al., 2003). 

A hu man is tic sci ence pol icy can help ful fill 

Vannevar Bush’s orig i nal vi sion of knowl edge 

that con trib utes to the com mon good. 

Philosophy, Science, 

and Pol icy Re search 

Within the pol icy move ment, sci ence pol icy 

plays a mi nor role com pared to eco nomic, 

health, and for eign pol icy. This is strik ing, 

given the grow ing im por tance of sci ence and 

tech nol ogy as driv ers of eco nomic growth and 

glob al iza tion, and as the source of both op por - 

tu ni ties and dan gers. A sci ence pol icy in flu - 

enced by the hu man i ties can help ad dress this 

rel a tive in at ten tion. 

The over all pol icy move ment takes a va ri - 

ety of ap proaches to its sub jects, for ex am ple, 

that of eco nom ics (“pol icy anal y sis”), po lit i cal 

sci ence (“pol icy stud ies”), and the tra di tion of 

the pol icy sci ences. The pol icy sci ences cre - 

ated by Har old Lasswell and de vel oped by 

Myres McDougal, Abra ham Kaplan, and 

many oth ers in the post-WWII era have never 

been sci en tific in the same way that the nat u ral 

and so cial sci ences are sci en tific. It is true that 

in both cases, “sci ence” means a ra tio nal, rig - 

or ous, and sys tem atic ap proach to prob lems 

pre sented to us by thought or ex pe ri ence. But 

the pol icy sci ences, build ing from their prag - 

ma tist roots, have also stressed the need for 

tak ing a con tex tual and ex plic itly nor ma tive 

ap proach to prob lems (Lasswell, 1970; 

Lasswell and McDougal, 1992). The pol icy 

sci en tist seeks eth i cal as well as em pir i cal 

PHILOSOPHY TODAY SUPPLMENT 2004 

28

knowl edge, and rec og nizes that the knowl edge 

claims pro duced are not uni versal izable. 

The prag ma tism of the pol icy sci ences 

gives the term “sci ence” a more ro bust mean - 

ing. As Pe ter deLeon and Sam Over man 

(1997) note, “Sci ence . . . is to be judged on the 

ba sis of its con tri bu tions to ward im prov ing the 

hu man con di tion. This in stru men tal no tion of 

the role of knowl edge in so ci ety is the ba sic 

prem ise of the pol icy sci ences” (470). It is de - 

rived di rectly from John Dewey, who was 

highly sen si tive to “the . . . dread di lemma of a 

choice be tween an ob jec tive sci ence or moral 

val ues” (Levi, 1959, 286). As Dewey (1930) 

re marked: 

I be came more and more trou bled by the in tel - 

lec tual scan dal that seemed to me in volved in 

the . . . du al ism in log i cal stand point and method 

be tween some thing called “sci ence” on the one 

hand and some thing called “mor als” on the 

other. I have long felt that the con struc tion of . . . 

a method of ef fec tive in quiry, which would ap - 

ply with out abrupt breach of con ti nu ity to the 

fields des ig nated by both of these words, is at 

once our needed the o ret i cal sol vent and the sup - 

ply of our great est prac ti cal want. (23) 

This early prag ma tist tenet of “ef fec tive in - 

quiry” formed a ba sis for the de vel op ment of 

pol icy sci ences. 

The pol icy sci ences, then, were de signed to 

be sci en tific with out be ing positivistic—“sci - 

en tific” in the larger sense of be ing em pir i cally 

grounded, sys tem atic knowl edge, in keep ing 

with the orig i nal mean ing of lo gos. By con - 

trast, the nat u ral and so cial sci ences them - 

selves are his tor i cally firmly rooted in the 

epistemological pre sump tions of pos i tiv ism— 

the be lief that valid knowl edge claims are 

value neu tral, re peat able, and con text in de - 

pend ent. Even though the Vi enna Cir cle brand 

of pos i tiv ism is long gone and pos i tiv ism has 

been roundly crit i cized for de cades, its pre sup - 

po si tions still find reg u lar ex pres sion within 

both the sci en tific and pol icy re search com mu - 

ni ties. The ques tion is whether or to what de - 

gree sci ence pol icy (as a topic of pol icy re - 

search) and the pol icy sci ences (as a school of 

pol icy re search) ap prox i mate Dewey’s un der - 

stand ing of sci ence. 

The re cent boomlet of post-posi tiv ist lit er a - 

ture in the pol icy sci ences sug gests that 

Dewey’s nor ma tive and con tex tual “ef fec tive 

in quiry” is of ten re placed with more posi tiv ist 

pre sump tions. Ac cord ing to this lit er a ture, the 

term “pol icy” is too of ten flat tened into 

proceduralist jar gon. Wil liam Ascher (1986) 

makes this ob ser va tion, ar gu ing that per sonal 

temp ta tions and in sti tu tional pres sures “push 

many prac ti tio ners away from solid pub lic pol - 

icy stud ies, back to ward dis ci plin ary spe cial - 

iza tion and ir rel e vance” (365). In short, even 

contextualized pol icy re search of ten passes 

over the task of eval u at ing the wor thi ness of 

com pet ing out comes to fo cus on eval u at ing 

the rel a tive ef fec tive ness of dif fer ent means to 

achieve given, un ex am ined goals. One may 

thus ques tion whether the pol icy sci ences have 

truly es caped the il licit at trac tions of our long, 

mod ern ist love af fair with ob jec tiv ity and cer - 

tainty. 

The ten dency of pol icy to be “sci en tific” in 

this con stricted sense can be coun ter acted by a 

more con scious bal anc ing be tween the em pir i - 

cal and the philo soph i cal. For it is worth ask - 

ing, in what ways are pol i cies dif fer ent than 

philo sophic prin ci ples? Could it be said, for in - 

stance, that phi los o phers such as Plato or 

Machiavelli had pol i cies? One way of un der - 

stand ing the re la tion be tween phi los o phy and 

pol icy is to see pol icy as the bridge be tween 

gen eral moral and philo sophic prin ci ples and 

par tic u lar de ci sions. An iso lated de ci sion does 

not con sti tute a pol icy; the lat ter prop erly im - 

plies a sys tem atized, or ga nized and me thod i - 

cal ap pli ca tion of a philo sophic prin ci ple or 

worldview. Pol icy mak ing (and re search into 

the same) in volves the art ful bal ance of gen eral 

philo sophic and axiological per spec tives and 

em pir i cal, ver i fi able facts, as well as an ap pre - 

ci a tion of the way that these two per spec tives 

in flu ence one an other. It is through ne glect ing 

the philo sophic pole of this pro cess that (sci - 

ence) pol icy re search can slip to ward pos i tiv - 

ism. 

The stan dard and still dom i nant ac count of 

val ues in the twen ti eth cen tury has seen them 

as de fi cient by com par i son with the ex em plary 

ra tio nal ity and ob jec tiv ity of sci ence. The 

temp ta tion, then, has been to turn val ues into 

so ci etal facts—into the ob jects of so cial sci - 

ence—or to ig nore them al to gether. This is an 

un der stand able re ac tion to the con tem po rary 

state of val ues de bates. For not only do val ues 

re sist quan ti fi ca tion and eval u a tion un der con - 

trolled con di tions; prac ti cally speak ing, val - 

ues dis cus sions reg u larly de gen er ate into in - 

ter mi na ble con flict. 

A FUTURE HUMANITIES POLICY 

29

None the less, the gulf be tween sci en tific 

and val ues de bates is nei ther as great nor as 

dis tinct as might be as sumed. On the side of 

sci ence, one need not em brace the ex tremes of 

post-mod ern thought to rec og nize that com - 

plete ob jec tiv ity of sci ence is a chi mera. To day 

it is gen er ally ac knowl edged that the sci en tific 

en ter prise is and must be built upon var i ous 

sets of val ues—those that de ter mine which 

sci en tific facts are to be sought, as well as the 

stan dards used for eval u at ing sci en tific claims 

(e.g., Proc tor, 1991). 

This point is of course con sis tent with the 

ob ser va tion that sci ence has been suc cess ful 

by any num ber of mea sures. None the less, “ob - 

jec tive” truths must be seen as con structs, in so - 

far as they are cre ated by ab stract ing from the 

on go ing flow of life in or der to build a neatly 

pack aged ar ti fi cial world—the ex per i ment, 

and more re cently, the com puter model— 

where ev ery vari able can be con trolled. While 

these re sults surely count as truth, such truths 

re side in a highly formulized or Pla tonic realm 

whose re la tion ship to our per sonal and pub lic 

lives re quires an act of in ter pre ta tion. Within 

the real world of lived ex pe ri ence we can not 

bracket things off a piece at a time; nei ther can 

we con trol more than a small num ber of the 

vari ables to which events are sub ject. Nor can 

we re es tab lish ini tial con di tions again and 

again. Out side the lab we are caught in the nonre 

peat able flow of his tory. Heraclitus’ dic tum 

that you can never step into the same river 

twice im plies that we are al ways rea son ing by 

anal ogy—com par ing a law of na ture with a 

spe cific nat u ral phe nom e non, or lab re sults 

with what hap pens in the field, or our own time 

with by gone eras. In suf fi cient as it may be, 

gen er als tend to fight the last war be cause a 

weak anal ogy is of ten better than none at all. 

The si ren song of sci en tific ob jec tiv ity has 

been se duc tive in large part be cause our un der - 

stand ing of sci ence has been based in the lab o - 

ra tory. View ing sci ence from the per spec tive 

of field sci ences such as ge ol ogy or ecol ogy 

high lights how de bates over sci ence are of ten - 

times not so dif fer ent from value de bates 

(Frodeman, 2003). Both re quire a con ge nial 

dis cur sive en vi ron ment where ap peals to rea - 

son are pos si ble, and where the par ties to the 

dis cus sion show in tel lec tual sym pa thy for 

each other’s points of view. As in sci en tific de - 

bates, par tic i pants in eth i cal and po lit i cal dis - 

cus sions must em body “the de sire for rea son - 

able agree ment, not the pur suit of mu tual 

ad van tage” (Scanlon, 1982, x). In both cases, 

peo ple give rea sons for their opin ions in or der 

to see if these opin ions can find jus ti fi ca tion in 

the mind of an other, and com mit them selves to 

chang ing their mind in the face of su pe rior ev i - 

dence or rea son ing. It is a cu ri os ity of mod ern 

cul ture that these (hu man is tic) qual i ties of 

mind have been much more as sid u ously cul ti - 

vated in the sci ences than in our eth i cal and po - 

lit i cal debates. 

It is only by fo cus ing on the po lar i ties—sci - 

ence in the sense of New to nian me chan ics, and 

val ues in dif fi cult cases such as eu tha na sia and 

abor tion—that we have been able to sus tain 

the ul ti mately coun ter pro duc tive lan guage of 

sub jec tive ver sus ob jec tive knowl edge. In the 

real world, de ci sion mak ers find that prob lems 

lie be tween these poles. Our great est ob sta cle 

to better dis cus sions about val ues may be the 

prej u dice that the qual i ties of open-mind ed - 

ness and ev i den tial rea son ing ap ply to only a 

nar row range of hu man ex pe ri ence de fined as 

“sci ence.” Re search ers in the pol icy sci ences, 

if they re main true to their prag ma tist past, can 

broaden this range of open-mind ed ness and 

so cial rea son ing to in clude de bates about the 

good life. In this pro le gom e non to a fu ture hu - 

man i ties pol icy, we sug gest that the hu man i - 

ties can play an im por tant role in this wid en ing 

of rea son able debate. 

Re-en vi sion ing Val ues in Pol icy De bates 

What is at stake here is of course some thing 

more than just the fu ture of a given pol icy 

school (sci en tific or oth er wise) or sci en tific re - 

search pro gram. The real prob lem is our so ci - 

ety’s over-re li ance upon tech ni cal so lu tions to 

our prob lems—fixes in volv ing a new tax pol - 

icy, eco nomic mech a nism, or sci en tific or 

tech no log i cal break through that al low us to 

over come a pol icy im passe with out mak ing a 

change in our selves. Of course some prob lems 

are ame na ble to tech ni cal so lu tions, but most 

live in a gray area that re quires a mix of sci - 

ence, tech nol ogy, and val ues anal y sis. For ex - 

am ple, wild fire pol icy has sci en tific (fire ecol - 

ogy), tech ni cal (fire re tar dant), and axiological 

(the mean ing of a healthy for est) as pects. Ste - 

phen Pyne (1999, x) re marks that in wild fire 

man age ment, “hu man is tic schol ar ship” is nec - 

es sary, be cause the “tech nol ogy could en able 

but not ad vise, [the] sci ence could ad vise but 

not choose,” and that ul ti mately the world of 

po lit i cal econ omy needs “the vi tal ity and rigor 


30

of phi los o phy, lit er a ture, and his tory if it were 

to choose wisely.” In the end, com plex prob - 

lems like those pre sented in wild fire man age - 

ment pres ent a be wil der ing mix of facts and 

val ues, and we are forced to ex am ine, and per - 

haps al ter, our be liefs about the right course of 

ac tion. This re quires pub lic fo rums ca pa ble of 

fos ter ing greater open ness to self-im prove - 

ment, better-tem pered con ver sa tion, and 

deeper re flec tion upon the mean ing of the 

good life within a technoscientific world. 

These goals have tra di tion ally be longed to the 

hu man i ties; prog ress in our pub lic de bates re - 

quires that they be come part of our pol icy 

processes. 

In formed by the con cepts, tools, and meth - 

od ol o gies found in the hu man i ties—e.g., the 

wider per spec tive of fered by his tory, the em - 

pathic un der stand ing gen er ated by lit er a ture, 

po etry, and art, and the log i cal clar ity of fered 

by phi los o phy—the hu man i ties aids pol icy 

con text anal y sis and en hance re flec tive di a - 

logue among stake holders in the pol icy pro - 

cess. It sup ple ments the val ues map ping ef - 

forts of the so cial sci ences by pro vid ing new 

cat e go ries of de scrip tion and al ter na tive meth - 

ods of eval u at ing pol icy mak ing. As a means 

of pol icy res o lu tion, hu man i ties pol icy gen er - 

ates op por tu ni ties for val ues ed u ca tion, clar i fi - 

ca tion, en hance ment, and trans for ma tion. 

Granted, the hu man i ties are not widely cel - 

e brated for their prac ti cal util ity. For over a 

cen tury now they have been jus ti fied largely 

on ro man ti cist grounds, their worth a mat ter 

be yond ba sic ne ces si ties, con sist ing in the dis - 

tinc tive plea sures of the life of the mind. This 

wor thy point should not blind us to the fact that 

since an cient times what we to day call hu man - 

is tic re flec tion was con sid ered es sen tial to a 

good life. 

Narrow and Wide Humanities Policy 

Cri tiques of cur rent sci ence pol icy—or 

more sim ply, the dawn ing rec og ni tion that the 

sim ple ap pli ca tion of the nat u ral sci ences 

alone is un likely to solve the so ci etal prob lems 

in whose name they are jus ti fied—have led 

pub lic fund ing agen cies to make mod est in - 

vest ments in so cial sci ence. For ex am ple, re - 

search into the so cial and po lit i cal as pects of 

cli mate change—known as “hu man con tri bu - 

tions and re sponses to global change”—re - 

ceives around two per cent of the US Global 

Cli mate Change Re search bud get, to tal ing $50 

mil lion. Even here, how ever, the over whelm - 

ing ma jor ity of this in vest ment goes to ward 

quan ti ta tive (of ten eco nomic) re search. The 

in vest ment in the hu man is tic as pects of is sues 

such as cli mate change has re mained quite 

small. The Hu man Ge nome pro ject co-spon - 

sors, the Na tional In sti tutes of Health (NIH) 

and the De part ment of En ergy (DOE), have de - 

voted five and three per cent of their re spec tive 

bud gets to so ci etal im pacts re search. 

There is of course some over lap be tween 

the fields, but to draw out the dif fer ences: the 

so cial sci ences de scribe val ues, while the hu - 

man i ties seek to im prove them. Draw ing from 

fields such as phi los o phy, lit er a ture, art, his - 

tory, and re li gion, hu man i ties pol icy ap plies 

hu man is tic knowl edge and per spec tives to 

prob lems in or der to clar ify, ex plore, chal - 

lenge, and re de fine pat terns of thought among 

stake holders in the pol icy pro cess. This in te - 

gra tion of the hu man i ties into pol icy de lib er a - 

tions can take dif fer ent (and com ple men tary) 

paths, which may be sum ma rized in terms of 

nar row and wide hu man i ties pol icy. 

The nar row ap proach to hu man i ties pol icy 

is al ready pres ent to day in a va ri ety of fed eral 

con texts, such as Eth i cal, Le gal, and So ci etal 

Im pli ca tions (ELSI) pro gram within the Hu - 

man Ge nome Pro ject, the Na tional 

Nanotechnology Ini tia tive, and Eth ics and 

Val ues Stud ies (EVS) within the Na tional Sci - 

ence Foun da tion’s So cial Sci ence Di rec tor ate. 

This ap proach is char ac ter ized by a pre dom i - 

nant fo cus upon ques tions of eth ics and epis te - 

mol ogy. Brack et ing ar eas of philo sophic con - 

cern such as meta phys ics and aes thet ics, this 

ap proach fo cuses on ques tions of logic and 

knowl edge within is sues such as the re li abil ity 

of ge netic test ing for sus cep ti bil i ties to var i ous 

med i cal con di tions, and is sues such as pri vacy, 

au ton omy, and prior and in formed con sent. 

Sim i larly, is sues such as pa tient and re search 

vol un teer safety and fair ness in the use of ge - 

netic in for ma tion by in sur ers, em ploy ers, and 

the courts have loomed large. 

Nar row hu man i ties pol icy can also be de - 

fined in terms of its fo cus upon pro cess rather 

than prod uct. It takes a proceduralist ap proach 

to ques tions of val ues, em pha siz ing that the 

right re sult is the one that co mes from fol low - 

ing the proper pro ce dures: open de lib er a tion, 

prior and in formed con sent, and op por tu nity 

for di a logue. This per spec tive urges de ci sionmak 

ers and par tic i pants to overtly pro nounce 

and de fend their value in ter ests, rather than 


31

treat them as per sonal pref er ences or purely 

given. Prac ti tio ners are urged to be open and 

hon est about their value com mit ments and 

make val ues an ex plicit part of their ra tio nale 

for de ci sion mak ing, just as sci en tific facts are. 

In seek ing to un cover and clar ify mo ti va - 

tions, hu man i ties pol icy can pro ceed by means 

of anal y sis or by shared di a logue. In the for mer 

case, hu man i ties pol icy com pares the stated 

(“for mal”) goals of an agency with its ac tual 

(“ef fec tive”) goals, and in cor po rates some ten - 

ets of the pol icy sci ences. Among the pol icy 

re search com mu nity, the pol icy sci ences may 

come clos est to the value-crit i cal anal y sis pro - 

moted by hu man i ties pol icy. By draw ing out 

log i cal im pli ca tions and, in some cases, con - 

tra dic tions, we can un cover philo sophic val ues 

and as sump tions that un der lie more vis i ble ac - 

tions and de ci sions. In this re spect, hu man i ties 

pol icy re veals the ex ist ing, if oth er wise in vis i - 

ble, mo ti vat ing val ues within an agency or sci - 

ence pol icy. While such val ues, once re vealed, 

may then be come open to pub lic or pri vate cri - 

tique, the spe cific con text will de ter mine 

whether they are then sub mit ted to eval u a tion 

and pos si ble re fine ment, or whether the anal y - 

sis will sim ply be meant to lead to greater 

trans par ency and more ef fi ciently fo cused en - 

er gies. 

In con trast, wide hu man i ties pol icy high - 

lights two ad di tional fac tors to those cov ered 

by nar row hu man i ties pol icy: draw ing upon a 

wider set of hu man i ties per spec tives and em - 

pha siz ing val ues ed u ca tion, eval u a tion, and 

mod i fi ca tion. Hu man i ties pol icy should not 

only be con cerned with see ing that ac tions are 

con sis tent with val ues; it should also de ter - 

mine, as far as pos si ble, which val ues are the 

best ones. Hu man i ties pol icy in this stron ger 

form seeks not just an ac count ing of val ues, 

but an ac tive role in shap ing this land scape. 

Wide hu man i ties pol icy at tempts to re shape 

the fun da men tal land scape of pol icy dis cus - 

sions: it is an at tempt at world mak ing, not just 

map-mak ing. Of course, the new land scape en - 

vi sioned by wide hu man i ties pol icy is not preformed; 

its shape and nu ance will re sult from 

ac tive di a logue on the val ues and goals of par - 

tic i pants and de ci sion-mak ers. Hu man i ties 

pol icy re joins the bat tle to iden tify and pro - 

mul gate val ues that im prove so ci ety and cre ate 

good pol icy. It is a re jec tion of the view that 

sees val ues as in ev i ta bly sub jec tive. 

More over, wide hu man i ties pol icy takes up 

tra di tional ar eas of philo soph i cal re flec tion 

that have fallen into dis fa vor, in ves ti gat ing 

ques tions such as what it means to be hu man. It 

be lieves that many of the is sues be ing brought 

up by sci ence and tech nol ogy to day re turn us 

to tra di tional aes thetic, meta phys i cal, and 

theo log i cal ques tions. For in stance, pos si ble 

fu ture ad vances in bio tech nol ogy do more 

than sim ply raise is sues of safety and prior 

con sent; they also go to the heart of what it 

means to be hu man. What would be the con se - 

quences for our sense of our selves if we can 

con sciously de sign chil dren? How would our 

sense of ac com plish ment be af fected if our 

skills and achieve ments were picked by some - 

one else? (see McKibben, 2003; Sandel, 2004) 

Aes thet ics pro vides a prom i nent ex am ple 

of the pos si ble con tri bu tion that the hu man i - 

ties can add to pol icy mak ing. While the anal y - 

sis of beauty has long been ruled by ro man ti - 

cist as sump tions that see art as pre dom i nantly 

a means of self-ex pres sion, aes thet ics has also 

been un der stood as tasked with force fully 

bring ing the re al ity of a sit u a tion home to peo - 

ple (Heidegger, 1971). On this view, aes thet ics 

consists in re al iza tion, mak ing some thing real 

and rel e vant to peo ple’s lives, whether it is a 

sci en tific fact or a per plex ity that a com mu nity 

finds it self in. Pic tures, paint ings, and fic tional 

nar ra tive be come bridges be tween bare fact 

and poi gnant mean ing, places where peo ple 

“get it,” fully grasp ing the im por tance of, say, 

sci en tific in sights to their daily lives. 

Aes thet ics al ready plays a con sti tu tive (if 

usu ally un ac knowl edged) role in the fram ing 

of pub lic pol icy. Take the ex am ple of acid mine 

drain age. Acid mine drain age (AMD) is a wa - 

ter qual ity prob lem com mon to rivers and lakes 

af fected by wa ter drain ing from mine sites. It is 

a crit i cal wa ter qual ity is sue around the world, 

af fect ing na tions from the Far East to Eu rope 

and the Amer i cas. Es ti mates of the costs of 

cleanup within the US alone are in the tens of 

bil lion of dol lars. As a mat ter of on go ing pub - 

lic pol icy, the beauty and pop u lar ity of a dam - 

aged area is fac tored into the de ci sion pro cess 

(along with other cri te ria such as cost, prox im - 

ity to pop u la tion ar eas, and de gree of dam age). 

Hu man i ties pol icy can help im prove such de - 

lib er a tions by mak ing them more hon est, sys - 

tem atic, and self-aware, as well as help them 

ap pre ci ate the ways in which aes thetic judg - 

ment are sus cep ti ble to rea son able dis cus sion 

(Frodeman, 2003). 

Re li gious thought pro vides an other no ta ble 

ex am ple of the pos si ble con tri bu tion of hu - 


32

man i ties pol icy. Part of the rea son that val ues 

ed u ca tion has been passed over within the pol - 

icy move ment lies in our lack of ap pre ci a tion 

of the spir i tual di men sion of sci en tific prac - 

tice, whether it be nat u ral, so cial, or pol icy sci - 

ence. The point here has noth ing to do with 

sec tar ian re li gion. Be com ing a sci en tist re - 

quires much more than tech ni cal skill at mem - 

o riz ing con ge ries of facts or ma nip u lat ing for - 

mu las, equip ment, or meth od ol ogy. It also 

re quires more than the mys te ri ous spark of cre - 

ativ ity that seizes upon a prob lem in an orig i - 

nal way. Be com ing a sci en tist re quires dis ci - 

plin ing the soul as well as the in tel lect. The 

pa tient sift ing of facts, the will ing ness to set 

aside per sonal de sires to fol low ev i dence 

wher ever it leads, the fair-mind ed ness that 

helps an op po nent im prove his or her own ar - 

gu ment to the det ri ment of one’s own, the abil - 

ity to live with un cer tainty as a per ma nent fact 

of life: these qual i ties con sti tute what can be 

iden ti fied as the spir i tual el e ment ly ing at the 

heart of science. 

This point has real im pli ca tions for hu man i - 

ties pol icy. Con sider, for in stance, a Bud dhist 

per spec tive on pol icy. At its root Bud dhism is 

con cerned with the man age ment of de sire, of - 

fer ing a psy cho log i cal and philo soph i cal read - 

ing of our trou bles as be ing less based in the 

lack of pos ses sions, and more rooted in our un - 

will ing ness to place lim its on our wants. Bud - 

dhist prac tice—for Bud dhism is pri mar ily a 

set of prac tices rather than a sys tem of be - 

liefs—fo cuses on loos en ing our at tach ment to 

our own wants. Suf fer ing re sults from the at - 

tach ment to what we want; lessen this, and we 

lessen our heart ache. 

Such points have gen er ally been taken as a 

mat ter of per sonal phi los o phy. But as an ex am - 

ple of a hu man i ties pol icy, a Bud dhist-in flu - 

enced sci ence pol icy could com ple ment our 

pre dom i nantly scientistic ap proach to prob - 

lems by rec og niz ing the folly of dog matic de - 

vo tion to tech no log i cal fixes (see Sivaraksa, 

1992). This ap proach to ward hu man i ties pol - 

icy could thus help ed u cate us to be more ju di - 

cious in the pur suit of our own de sires within 

pol icy de bates. 

As sug gested ear lier—and not with out a 

touch of irony—the most ef fec tive way to pro - 

mote such prac tices may be to ex tract and gen - 

er al ize the set of skills found within sci en tific 

prac tice, adapt ing them for the world of pol - 

icy-mak ing and po lit i cal de bate. But if an ed u - 

ca tion in per sonal val ues is pos si ble within sci - 

en tific prac tice, why not within the prac tice of 

pol icy-mak ing and po lit i cal de bate? This 

would not, of course, mean an ed u ca tion in 

what is the “right” opin ion about, e.g., wel fare 

pay ments or the size of gov ern ment, but rather 

an in creased at ten tion to im prov ing the pro - 

cess and de meanor of po lit i cal de bate through 

per sonal trans for ma tion. This trans for ma tion 

also hear kens back to the idea of Bildung, a 

Ger man term that de fines ed u ca tion as largely 

con sist ing in the de vel op ment of a self that is 

more self-aware, em pa thetic, and self-con - 

trolled. 

The out stand ing cur rent ex am ple of a wide 

ap proach to hu man i ties pol icy is the Pres i - 

dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics, which uses a wide 

range of hu man i ties ma te ri als (phi los o phy, lit - 

er a ture, re li gion, etc.) to in form its de lib er a - 

tions on is sues such as stem cell re search, clon - 

ing, ge netic en hance ment, and ag ing. The field 

of bioethics, with its or i gins in the 1960s, is an 

ex em plary case of nar row hu man i ties pol icy, 

fo cus ing on var i ous ques tions of eth ics and 

epis te mol ogy such as the au ton omy and rights 

of pa tients, and de vis ing more nuanced def i ni - 

tions such as that of brain death. In con trast, 

the Pres i dent’s Coun cil has been dis tinc tive in 

ex pand ing the range of top ics to in clude the 

full range of the hu man i ties. Its re cent com pi - 

la tion of read ings, Be ing Hu man, draws from a 

wide va ri ety of po etry, sa cred books, his tory, 

phi los o phy, sci ence, and per sonal es says 

(Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics, 2003). 

The re ac tions that the Coun cil’s de lib er a - 

tions have elic ited have been tell ing. On the 

one hand, the Coun cil’s at tempt to bring an ex - 

panded sense of the hu man i ties to bear in pol - 

icy for mu la tion has been crit i cized for its tech - 

no log i cal pes si mism and per ceived po lit i cally 

con ser va tive agenda, and for its lack of ex plicit 

pol icy rec om men da tions: “there are times for 

get ting to the damn point” (Brainard, 2004). 

But on the other, Be ing Hu man has sold out its 

ini tial print ing of 5000 cop ies, and its work has 

been praised in a num ber of pub li ca tions as a 

ground break ing ef fort in alert ing the pub lic to 

the op por tu ni ties and dan gers of bio tech nol - 

ogy (e.g, Schaub, 2004). The Coun cil’s goal of 

in form ing rather than di rect ing pub lic con ver - 

sa tion ex em pli fies the pos si ble con tri bu tions 

of hu man i ties policy. 


33

Conclusion 

This es say con sti tutes only a pro le gom e non 

to a fu ture hu man i ties pol icy. The only real 

way to tell whether the claims made here are 

co gent will be to test them through a se ries of 

case stud ies (e.g., Frodeman, 2003). Only 

through a sus tained ex plo ra tion of is sues such 

as cli mate change, bio tech nol ogy, and 

nanotechnology will we be able to iden tify the 

con se quences of a se ri ous com mit ment to hu - 

man i ties pol icy. 

None the less, this es say does serve a mod est 

pur pose. For even the bare in tro duc tion of the 

idea that the hu man i ties have sig nif i cant con - 

tri bu tions to make to pol icy de bates serves as 

an in vi ta tion to keep an eye out for ne glected 

di men sions of so ci etal is sues. The de vel op - 

ment of a more hu man is tic ap proach to sci ence 

pol icy re search will best oc cur through a thou - 

sand in quir ing thoughts and in cre men tal ac - 

tions in as many sit u a tions. 

REFERENCES 

Ascher, Wil liam. (1986). “The Evo lu tion of the Pol icy 

Sci ences: Un der stand ing the Rise and Avoid ing the 

Fall,” Jour nal of Pol icy Anal y sis and Man age ment 5, no. 

2: 365-389. 

Brainard, Jeffrey. (2004) “A New Kind of Bioethics,” 

Chron i cle of Higher Ed u ca tion (May 21), A22. 

Bush, Vannevar. (1945) Sci ence—The End less Fron tier. 

Wash ing ton, D.C.: United States Gov ern ment Print ing 

Of fice. Avail able from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/ 

nsf50/vbush1945.htm 

Callahan, Dan iel. (2003). What Price Better Health? 

Haz ards of the Re search Im per a tive. Berke ley, CA: 

University of California Press. 

DeLeon, Peter. (1998) “Introduction: The Evidentiary 

Base for Pol icy Anal y sis: Em pir i cist Ver sus 

Postpositivist Positions,” Policy Studies Journal, 26, no. 

1: 109–13. 

DeLeon, Pe ter, and Sam Over man. (1997). “A His tory of 

the Pol icy Sci ences,” in Jack Rabin, W. Bartley 

Hildreth, and Ger ald J. Miller, eds. Hand book of Pub lic 

Administration, 2nd ed. New York: Dekker, 467–505. 

Dewey, John. (1930). “From Ab so lut ism to 

Experimentalism,” in vol. 2 of G. P. Ad ams and W. P. 

Montague, eds. Con tem po rary Amer i can Phi los o phy. 

New York: Macmillan, 13–27. 

Frodeman, Rob ert. (2003) Geo-Logic: Break ing Ground 

be tween Phi los o phy and the Earth Sci ences. Al bany, 

NY: SUNY Press. 

Frodeman, Rob ert, Carl Mit cham, and Roger Pielke, Jr., 

(2003) “Hu man i ties Pol icy — and a Pol icy for the Hu - 

manities,” Is sues in Sci ence and Tech nol ogy 20 (Fall): 

29-32. 

Heidegger, Mar tin. (1971) “The Or i gin of the Work of 

Art,” in Po etry, Lan guage, Thought, trans. Al bert 

Hofstadter. New York: Harper and Row, 17–87. 

Lasswell, Har old D. (1970) “The Emerg ing Con cep tion 

of the Pol icy Sci ences,” Pol icy Sci ences 1: 3–14. 

Lasswell, Har old, and Myres McDougal. (1992) Jurispru 

dence for a Free So ci ety: Stud ies in Law, Sci ence 

and Pol icy, 2 vols. West Ha ven, CT: Uni ver sity of New 

Haven Press. 

Levi, Al bert Wil liam. (1959). Phi los o phy and the Mod - 

ern World. Bloomington, IN: In di ana Uni ver sity Press. 

McKibben, Bill. (2003) Enough: Stay ing Hu man in an 

En gi neered Age. New York: Times Books. 

Moulakis, Athanasios. (1994) Be yond Util ity: Lib eral 

Ed u ca tion for a Tech no log i cal Age. Co lum bia, MO: 

University of Missouri Press. 

Proc tor, Rob ert. (2002). Value Free Sci ence? Pu rity and 

Power in Mod ern Knowl edge. Cam bridge, MA: Har - 

vard Uni ver sity Press. 

Pyne, Ste phen. (1999). “Smokechasing,” Ideas from the 

Na tional Hu man i ties Cen ter 6, no. 2. Avail able from: 

http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/ideasv62/pyne.htm 

Sandel, Mi chael. (2004) “The Case Against Per fec tion,” 

At lan tic Monthly 293 (April): 50–60. 

Sarewitz, Dan iel, and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (2000). Break - 

ing the Global Warm ing Grid lock. At lan tic Monthly 286 

(July): 55–64. 

Sarewitz, Dan iel. (2003) “Does Sci ence Pol icy Ex ist, and 

If So, Does it Mat ter?: Some Ob ser va tions on the U.S. 

R&D Bud get,” Dis cus sion Pa per for Earth In sti tute Sci - 

ence, Technology, and Global Development Seminar, 

April 8. 

Scanlon, Thomas. (1982) “Contractualism and Util i tar i - 

an ism,” in Amartya Sen and Ber nard Wil liams, eds., 

Util i tar i an ism and Be yond. Cam bridge: Cam bridge 

Uni ver sity Press, 103–28. 


34

Schaub, Di ana. (2004) “Me thu se lah and Us,” The New 

Atlantis 2, no. 4. Avail able from http:// 

www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/4/schaub.htm. 

Sivaraksa, Sulak. (1992) Seeds of Peace: A Bud dhist Vi - 

sion for Re new ing So ci ety. Berke ley: Par al lax. 

The Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics. (2003) Be ing Hu - 

man: Read ings from the Pres i dent’s Coun cil on 

Bioethics. New York: Regan Books. Avail able from 

http://www.bioethics.gov/bookshelf/ 


35

SCI ENCE IN A REAL-WORLD CON TEXT 

CON STRUCT ING KNOWL EDGE THROUGH RE CUR SIVE LEARN ING 

Matthias Gross and Wolfgang Krohn 

The ex per i men tal method is a most pow er - 

ful means of the em pir i cal sci ences that com - 

bines the the ory-based ask ing of ques tions 

with the readi ness to reg is ter sur prises. From 

the days of Ga li leo (1564–1642) and Fran cis 

Ba con (1561–1626) var i ous mod els have con - 

cep tu al ized the ten sion be tween do ing some - 

thing with na ture and ob serv ing it, be tween de - 

duc tive rea son ing and in duc tive ex pe ri ence, 

be tween mod el ing ar ti fi cial set-ups and be ing 

in com plex en vi ron ments, be tween con trol 

and un der stand ing. For a long time, the phi los - 

o phy of sci ence made ex per i men ta tion sub ser - 

vi ent to the ory. Re cent stud ies from his tory 

(Gooding, 1990), so ci ol ogy (Pickering, 1995), 

and the phi los o phy of sci ence (Hack ing, 1983; 

Rheinberger, 1997) have strongly mod i fied 

this view. It is now widely ac cepted that ex per - 

i men ta tion has a liv ing space of its own with 

strik ingly dif fer ent re la tions to con cep tual 

work in var i ous fields of re search. But in each 

case the ten sion that the ex per i men tal method 

con sti tutes be tween in ter ven ing into re al ity 

and un der stand ing it is what makes ex per i - 

men ta tion an uniquely pow er ful learn ing strat - 

egy, even if the ten sion it self is still open to 

philo soph i cal re flec tion. 

If it is so suc cess ful, why then is it re stricted 

to the ar ti fi cial world of the lab o ra tory? Ob vi - 

ously, be cause the method is paved with sur - 

prises, fail ures, er rors, and ex cep tions that 

peo ple most likely do not want to ex pe ri ence in 

real life. The in sti tu tional set-up of the lab o ra - 

tory con fines all out comes to a spe cial world, 

mak ing it easy to start anew if some thing bad 

hap pens. If new knowl edge is achieved, the 

costs of trial and er ror can quickly be for got - 

ten. But mis takes im ply no dan gers for any one 

in real life. No one ex cept the “mad sci en tist” 

movie star would ac cept the risks as so ci ated 

with this kind of knowl edge pro duc tion. The 

lab o ra tory sym bol izes an ex clu sive so cial re al - 

ity where these risks are wel come. For na ture 

too, the lab o ra tory pro vides a de gree of con - 

trol, of bound ary and ini tial con di tions, of the 

in stru men ta tion of ob ser va tion and mea sure - 

ment of ef fects, so that the causal anal y sis of 

sur prises can be much better ac counted for 

than those ex pe ri enced in na ture at large. 

It would be point less to deny these so cial 

and epistemic ad van tages of lab o ra tory sci - 

ence. But the ar gu ment can be made that these 

ad van tages are achieved by ide als of con - 

straint, ab strac tion, sim plic ity, and pu rity at 

odds with the course of na ture and so ci ety. 

More over, these ide als have given rise to a 

world-view that in ter prets the space, time, 

things, and peo ple of the world as faint ap prox - 

i ma tions of the ab strac tions that make up the 

lab o ra tory world. Phi los o phers of sci ence 

have only started to de cons truct this worldview 

(cf. Cart wright 1999; Frodeman, 2003). 

Con tem po rary so ci ety in creas ingly faces 

re search strat e gies that, de spite their ex per i - 

men tal fea tures, can not be re stricted to the spe - 

cial world of the lab o ra tory. Re lease ex per i - 

ments with ge net i cally mod i fied or gan isms, 

which are par a dox i cal in char ac ter, are a good 

ex am ple. The ques tion as to whether the risks 

of re leas ing GMOs are ac cept able can only be 

an swered by re leas ing them. Even if small 

scale and sim u la tion stud ies serve to re strict 

the risks, they even tu ally can only serve to 

sharpen the hy poth e ses sur round ing ex per i - 

men tal ac tion in the open field. (For an in ter - 

est ing ex am ple see Levidov, 2003.) An even 

more ex treme case oc curs with the anal y sis of 

high-risk tech nol o gies such as nu clear power 

plants. They are built and run ac cord ing to 

care fully de vel oped safety mea sures and se cu - 

rity plans. But whether or not these cover all 

rel e vant fac tors of po ten tial tech no log i cal and 

or ga ni za tional mal func tion ing is an open 

ques tion, to be an swered only by putt ing the 

in stal la tions into op er a tion (Krohn and 

Weingart, 1987). An al most op po site en sem - 

ble of cases can be made of land fills. These 

have been built more or less care lessly, with 

the only goal be ing to get rid of waste as 

cheaply as pos si ble, only to dis cover that they 

are “wild bio-chem i cal re ac tors” (ex pert opin - 

ion) no body can con trol. Land fills have turned 

out to be un will ingly in stalled ex per i men tal 


36

sta tions to which only later hy po thet i cal rea - 

son ing was at tached (Krohn, 2003). 

These and other cases pro vide ev i dence that 

de spite the risks of real world ex per i men ta - 

tion—partly de lib er ately and partly un will - 

ingly—the ex per i men tal method has spread 

through out so ci ety, leav ing be hind the re stric - 

tions of the lab o ra tory. Whether the cases are 

taken to be ac cept able or not de pends on a va ri - 

ety of fac tors we can only men tion in pass ing: 

in for ma tion, vol un ta rism, fair dis tri bu tion of 

costs and ben e fits, avail abil ity of al ter na tives, 

and so on. A phi los o phy of sci ence that se ri - 

ously con sid ers this so ci etal char ac ter of ex - 

per i men tal learn ing faces an im por tant task in 

de vel op ing a frame work for keep ing in bal - 

ance sci en tific knowl edge pro duc tion and so - 

cial change. 

The cases so far men tioned sug gest that ex - 

per i men ta tion be yond the lab o ra tory is a re - 

cent phe nom e non. In the fol low ing we want to 

pro pose that there is a much older and more 

deeply rooted un der stand ing of the so cial 

char ac ter of mod ern sci ence. We have se lected 

a set of epistemological po si tions that will al - 

low us to think through the idea of ex per i men - 

ta tion in so ci ety by high light ing dif fer ent as - 

pects. The se lec tion is guided by a for mula 

which J. W. von Goe the (1749–1832) chose as 

the ti tle for one of his es says on nat u ral phi los - 

o phy: “The ex per i ment as me di a tor be tween 

sub ject and ob ject.” We want to give it a more 

gen eral read ing than Goe the did. There are 

var i ous ways in which ex per i men ta tion can be 

de fined as a re la tion be tween those who ex per - 

i ment and the re al ity ex per i mented upon. The 

lab o ra tory view is that the ex per i ment nei ther 

ef fects the ex per i menter nor re al ity, but when 

the job is done be comes part of his tory. Al ter - 

na tive views take into ac count that the ex per i - 

menter as sub ject is also sub jected to change 

ex erted by the ex per i ment, and that re al ity 

does not re main the same af ter hav ing been 

treated by in stru men tal pro cess ing. 

The fol low ing sec tions out line some of the 

po si tions de vel oped. They shall es cort us to a 

richer un der stand ing of real-world ex per i men - 

ta tion as a way of chang ing and de sign ing so ci - 

ety and na ture. They should also dem on strate 

the rel e vance of the en dur ing value of cre ative 

en gage ment with his tor i cal writ ings in the 

fields of phi los o phy and so ci ol ogy of sci ence. 

Experimentation Institutionalized: 

The Baconian Con tract 

Our first ref er ence is to Fran cis Ba con who 

was the first phi los o pher to re flect upon the re - 

la tion of the ex per i men tal method and so ci ety. 

He was also in flu en tial in the for ma tion of the 

Car te sian world view, which dis tin guished the 

ex per i menter’s realm from the world of ob - 

jects ex per i mented upon and priv i leged hu man 

(ra tio nal) be ings as mas ters of the world to 

which they es sen tially do not be long. 

Ba con’s most pro voc a tive pro posal was the 

idea that ap proval of the ex per i men tal method 

in phi los o phy and sci ence would turn so ci ety 

it self into an ex per i ment. Af ter try ing in vain to 

use his po si tion in the high est ad min is tra tive 

ranks of the Brit ish Em pire to ad vance the new 

sci ence by ei ther po lit i cal res o lu tion or no ble 

pa tron age, he re sorted to pub lic ity: “I turn to 

men; to whom I have cer tain sal u tary ad mo ni - 

tions to of fer and cer tain fair re quests to make” 

(Great In stau ra tion, pref ace, para graph 5). 

Among the re quests is “to join in con sul ta tion 

for the com mon good” (para graph 6). Later, 

hav ing pon dered the pros and cons of the new 

ex per i men tal method, he de clares: “Lastly, 

even if the breath of hope . . . were fainter than 

it is and harder to per ceive; yet the trial (if we 

would not bear a spirit al to gether ab ject) must 

by all means be made” (Novum Organum, I, 

114). In the Latin orig i nal: “experiendum 

esse.” 

So ci ety should give the ex per i men tal 

method an ex per i men tal chance. The prom ises 

of gains can not be jus ti fied by an tic i pa tory ar - 

gu ment, but only by prac tic ing the new 

method. Those who are re luc tant are in vited to 

con sider the deal in terms of a risk as sess ment: 

“For there is no com par i son be tween that 

which we may lose by not try ing and by not 

suc ceed ing; since by not try ing we throw away 

the chance of an im mense good: by not suc - 

ceed ing we only in cur the loss of a lit tle hu man 

la bor. But . . . it ap pears to me . . . that there is 

hope enough and to spare, not only to make a 

bold man try [ad experiendum], but also to 

make a so ber-minded and wise man be lieve” 

(Novum Organum, I, 114). Ba con’s re mark - 

able in sight into the so ci etal risks of po lit i cally 

au tho riz ing the ex per i men tal method of sci - 

ence is as so ci ated with a set of in sti tu tional 

con di tions and epistemological ax i oms. These 

are: 


37

The po ten tial harm of new knowl edge is 

con cealed from so ci ety, be cause sci ence is 

per formed by a fra ter nity of in sid ers who have 

taken an oath to se crecy un til the use ful ness of 

new knowl edge and tech nol ogy is ap proved by 

ex perts [“And this we do also: we have con sul - 

ta tions, which of the in ven tions and ex pe ri - 

ences which we have dis cov ered shall be pub - 

lished, and which not; and take all an oath of 

se crecy, for the con ceal ing of those which we 

think fit to keep se cret” (New Atlantis III, 

264)]. 

Ex per i men tal fail ure as well as er rors of hy - 

po thet i cal rea son ing are ac cept able be cause 

they af fect only the in ter nal dis course of sci - 

ence, not its so cial en vi ron ment. So ci ety is ex - 

cluded from the prac tice of sci ence. Be ing in - 

ter nal to sci ence, fail ure and er ror are 

con sid ered harm less or valu able. Mis takes in 

the lab o ra tory can be eas ily cor rected (Novum 

Organum, II, Aph o rism XX). 

Sci en tific re sults have the form of ef fects, 

which can—if prop erly un der stood—be 

“superinduced” into many ob jects of the ma te - 

rial world (e.g. mag ne tism, color). Nat u ral 

laws are con sid ered to be dis po si tions for ac - 

tion (Novum Organum, II, Aph o rism IV). 

An ex per i menter is not part of the ex per i - 

ment. He or she changes ob jects with out be ing 

changed. 

These con di tions of ac cept ing ex per i men tal 

sci ence be came in sti tu tion al ized in the found - 

ing charters of sci en tific acad e mies and so ci et - 

ies, and they be came com po nents of the dom i - 

nant ide ol ogy for sup port ing sci en tific 

prog ress. They formed what has come to be 

called the con tract be tween sci ence and so ci - 

ety (Gib bons et al., 1994) and be tween so ci ety 

and na ture (Serres, 1995). 

This is a re mark able con struc tion. There is 

no other func tional field in so ci ety—nei ther 

pol i tics, nor econ omy, nor the le gal sys tem, 

not to men tion arts, ed u ca tion, or re li gion— 

where a com pa ra ble type of ac tion on a trial 

ba sis is in sti tu tion ally de fined. We still largely 

be lieve in and live with this con trac tual 

scheme. Yet its prob lem atic im pli ca tions with 

re spect to our at ti tudes to ward and ac tion 

against na ture are well known and are in need 

of re vi sion, as Goe the was al ready able to re al - 

ize. 

Goethe and the Experimenter’s Self 

Johann Wolfgang von Goe the, as au thor 

and nat u ral ist re searcher, calls this con cept of 

dis tance and dom i na tion into ques tion and de - 

vel ops a view of ex per i men ta tion com monly 

paved by con tri bu tions from both sides. Goe - 

the is, of course, best known for his drama 

Faust, which por trays an ex per i men tal seeker 

of truth with quite a dif fer ent char ac ter than the 

Baconian sci en tists. Dr. Fau stus was de voted 

to sci ence with all his worldly life and his eter - 

nal soul. Fau stus not only per formed ex per i - 

ments but also lived an ex per i men tal life, in - 

clud ing all the risks that the Baconian con tract 

had re stricted to the spe cial world of the lab o - 

ra tory. Fau stus con ducted a real-life ex per i - 

ment driven by an un lim ited will to knowl - 

edge, ready to face ev ery ex pe ri ence of fered to 

him on the ba sis of the Mephistophelean con - 

tract. He was ab so lutely con vinced that fac ing 

the ev i dence of truth would be some thing very 

dif fer ent from the pos ses sion of some prop o si - 

tional knowl edge able to be traded to oth ers. If 

his en deavor is still con sid ered to be re search, 

it is in al most ev ery re spect a coun ter-par a - 

digm to the Baconian idea of do ing sci ence. 

Surely Goe the was not Faust, what ever 

Faust ian traits may have driven him. His to ri - 

ans of sci ence ac knowl edge Goe the as a rather 

dis tin guished re searcher of his own in var i ous 

fields—the ory of color, ge ol ogy, bot any, and 

anat omy. Yet there are re la tions be tween his 

fic tional char ac ter and his phi los o phy of ex - 

per i men tal sci ence. When Goe the’s con tro - 

versy with the New to nian stan dard model of 

color reached its first peak, he wrote a small es - 

say, The Ex per i ment as Me di a tor Be tween Ob - 

ject and Sub ject (1988, orig i nally writ ten in 

1792–1793). 

Its ba sic idea is that ex per i men ta tion is a 

mu tual pro cess of shap ing the ob server and the 

ob served field of study. Shap ing the ob served 

field means gen er at ing phe nom ena de pend ent 

on con di tions set by the ex per i menter. Shap ing 

ob serv ers means let ting their ex pe ri ences ex - 

pand their skills of do ing and see ing. Ex per i - 

men ta tion is a con tin u ous prac tice of ex pand - 

ing both the phe nom ena and our 

un der stand ing of their sim i lar i ties and dis sim i - 

lar i ties (Krohn, 1998). 

Whereas the Baconian lab o ra tory re flects a 

view of na ture where ma te ri als and ef fects can 

be iso lated, stored, and used at will for var i ous 

pur poses, the Goethean field-lab o ra tory re - 


38

flects the fol low ing view: “As ev ery thing in 

na ture, es pe cially the gen eral pow ers and el e - 

ments are in ev er last ing ef fect and coun ter ef - 

fect, it can be said of ev ery phe nom e non that it 

re lates to in nu mer a ble oth ers just as a free glid - 

ing point of light is said to emit its rays into ev - 

ery di rec tion” (HA, vol 13, 17f.). Goe the’s 

mes sage is by no means meant to guard nat u ral 

phe nom ena from the ar ti facts of ex per i men ta - 

tion, but to ex pand one’s own ex pe ri ence of the 

phe nom e nal world by means of ex per i ment. It 

is this mu tual ex pan sion of phe nom ena made 

vis i ble and the lived ex pe ri ence of the re - 

searcher that makes ex per i men ta tion a me di at - 

ing op er a tion. “Have we per formed an ex per i - 

ment . . . we can not care fully enough 

in ves ti gate what im me di ately bor ders on it. . . . 

The di ver si fi ca tion of ev ery sin gle ex per i ment 

is the nat u ral sci en tist’s es sen tial duty” (HA, 

XIII, 18). 

Goe the was con vinced that the stan dard 

method of test ing ideas by ex per i ment was a 

dan ger ous in vi ta tion to ex ert hu man power 

over na ture and to dom i nate, in stead of de - 

velop a pro cess of mu tual im pact. A fi nal quote 

shows how Goe the was will ing to use the 

Baconian ter mi nol ogy of power, vic tory, and 

de feat, but to use it in a sym met ri cal way and 

thereby aban don it: 

If some one trained in vi va cious ob ser va tion be - 

gins to strug gle with na ture, he first feels the tre - 

men dous de sire/drive to con quer things. It does 

not last long, how ever, so that they force their 

way into him so bru tally, that he feels well how 

much rea son there is to ac knowl edge their 

power and to adore/ad mire their im pact. Hav ing 

re al ized this mu tual in flu ence he shall be come 

aware of a dou ble in fin ity: with re spect to the 

ob jects the man i fold of be ing and be com ing and 

the vi va cious cross over of their re la tions, with 

re spect to him self the po ten tial of in fi nite for - 

ma tion (Ausbildung) by skill fully de vel op ing 

his sus cep ti bil ity as well as his judg ment to ever 

new forms of ac com mo da tion and coun ter ac - 

tion. (HA XIII, p. 53; Mor ph ol ogy, Apol o gies of 

the work) 

The in ter pre ta tion of the ex per i ment as a pro - 

cess of mu tual form ing of sub ject and ob ject 

con veys con cepts de vel oped in the eigh teenth 

cen tury. These con cepts were de vel oped to 

link bi o log i cal pro cesses of self-or ga ni za tion 

to hu man ists’ con cepts of ed u ca tion as a pro - 

cess of in structed self-for ma tion. To lis ten 

care fully to na ture’s in struc tions is as im por - 

tant as guid ing her to ex hibit fur ther 

phe nom ena. 

Goe the de vel oped his con cep tion more or 

less as a de fen sive po si tion against what he 

con sid ered to be the mo nop o lis tic New to nian 

school. Rather than di rect ing it against phys - 

ics, it might be more ap pro pri ate to take it as an 

al ter na tive model of ex per i men tal prac tice 

fruit ful in non-lab o ra tory fields of re search. 

Bryson (2002) has traced back a sim i lar no tion 

of ex per i ment to Henry Thoreau’s so journ to 

Walden Pond and the po lar sci en tist Rich ard 

Evelyn Byrd con ducted im por tant re search on 

Ross Ice Bar rier in Antarctica in the 1930s on a 

re lated ba sis of un der stand ing the ex per i ment 

(Norton, 2002; Gross, 2003b). 

Liebig’s Experimentation with Natural 

Cy cles 

The chem ist Justus von Liebig (1803– 

1873) was among the first to deal with the eco - 

log i cal prob lems aris ing from mod ern iza tion. 

Prob lems of ur ban iza tion and in dus tri al iza tion 

prod ded him to re con sider the so ci ety-na ture 

re la tion ship from a sci en tific per spec tive. 

Liebig was fa mous for sev eral ac tiv i ties: 

founder of the first ac a demic chem is try lab o ra - 

tory, founder of ag ri cul tural chem is try and in - 

ven tor of ar ti fi cial fer til izer, ed i tor of the lead - 

ing jour nal of chem is try, ex tremely suc cess ful 

in pop u lar iz ing chem is try, and in flu en tial in 

shap ing the uni ver sity train ing of chem i cal 

pro fes sion als. His early ca reer brought him 

fame as one of the most dis tin guished 

experimentalists in or ganic chem is try, while 

his stu dents spread all over the world to es tab - 

lish chem is try-based in dus tries. 

Later he de vel oped a view of na ture that 

turned his ex per i men tal work to ward an in ves - 

ti ga tion of the cy cli cal re pro duc tion of life. 

This was, of course, a philo soph i cal par a digm 

with a long tra di tion. But only Liebig was the 

first to turn the par a digm into a chem i cal re - 

search pro gram. The aim was to an a lyze the 

con di tions of life with out ref er ence to mys te ri - 

ous fac tors such as the vi tal force or for ma tive 

drive. 

Liebig in ves ti gated life dy nam ics on di - 

verse lev els. The most ba sic was to ex per i men - 

tally re con struct how or ganic sub stances car - 

ried out chem i cal syn the sis. Fol low ing the 

fa mous first syn the sis of uric acid by Friedrich 

Wöhler in 1828, it was as sumed that all or - 


39

ganic sub stances could be re pro duced ar ti fi - 

cially. At a sec ond level, it was nec es sary to 

un der stand how the equi lib rium of plant and 

an i mal life is main tained over time and un der 

chang ing nu tri ent con di tions. On yet an other 

level, or ganic chem ists be gan to an a lyze how 

dif fer ent spe cies of plants and an i mals in ter act 

to main tain their en vi ron ments. Fi nally, the 

same ques tion was ad dressed in terms of the 

sta bil ity of world cli mate. The re sult was a 

grand the ory of eco-equi lib rium—that was 

also an at tempt to build a chem i cal im pe ri al - 

ism, end ing tra di tional ag ri cul tural and farm - 

ing re search, and try ing to sup press emerg ing 

work in mi cro bi ol ogy, whose most im por tant 

ex po nent, Louis Pas teur, was an equally strong 

player of pol i tics in sci ence (Krohn and 

Schäfer, 1982). 

The in tro duc tion of Liebig’s fa mous Chem - 

is try in its Ap pli ca tion to Ag ri cul ture and 

Phys i ol ogy (1840) states: 

Our pres ent re search in nat u ral his tory pro ceeds 

from the con vic tion that laws of in ter ac tion not 

only ex ist among two or three, but rather among 

all phe nom ena which in the realm of min er als, 

plants, and an i mals con di tion life on the sur face 

of the earth. Thus none of them is sep a rate but at 

all times joined to one or sev eral oth ers, all of 

them linked to gether with out be gin ning and 

with out end. The se quence of these phe nom ena, 

their or i gins and their de par tures, may be com - 

pared to the tidal move ment within a cy cle. 

(1840, 87) 

The point is that in di vid ual ex per i ments have 

value only with re spect to their func tion in the 

com pre hen sive study of life on earth, which by 

no means can be re duced to the con fines of the 

lab o ra tory. 

While tack ling the sig nif i cant ques tion of 

whether car bo hy drates can be con verted into 

fats, Liebig took the op por tu nity to re buke the 

poor state of ex per i men ta tion in an i mal phys i - 

ol ogy: 

With out be ing ac quainted with the con di tions 

or even ask ing whether such con di tions ex ist 

they first of all ex clude ev ery thing which would 

make it pos si ble to an swer the ques tion. The an - 

i mals are put into a state of ar ti fi cially in duced 

dis ease, de prived of all nour ish ment; . . . they 

ex clude all those mat ters that play a part in . . . 

the sus te nance of vi tal func tions act ing on fat 

for ma tion. They then be lieve that these mis er a - 

ble and cruel ex per i ments have fur nished proof. 

. . . These ex per i ments serve only to prove the 

ig no rance and to tal in ca pac ity of these ex per i - 

ment ers to of fer a so lu tion to such ques tions. 

(1944, 40–41) 

What is sig nif i cant here is that in so far as or - 

ganic chem i cal ex per i men ta tion is de ter mined 

by the con cept of the cy cles of the el e men tary 

com po nents of plants, an i mals, soils, and the 

at mo sphere, it must be guided by a sci en tific 

view that en com passes this real world. Given 

the fact that Liebig was fa mous for his in ven - 

tive ca pac ity as an ex per i menter and for his 

stub born chem i cal reductionism, this at tempt 

to de ter mine the lab o ra tory world in terms of 

its global en vi ron ment was a re mark able shift. 

Liebig im pressed his con tem po rar ies not 

only with this early view of a sci ence-based 

ecol ogy, but also with his dis cus sion about the 

nat u ral con di tions of the his tory and fu ture of 

cul ture. All in all, his move into ag ri cul tural 

chem is try had the goal of pro vid ing in dus trial 

so ci ety with a safe and sus tain able ba sis of nu - 

tri tion. Liebig deeply in flu enced Karl Marx 

(1818–1883) with his warn ings against ru in - 

ous ex ploi ta tion ef fected by eco nom i cally ori - 

en tated farm ing. While Liebig be lieved that 

would ra tio nal ize ag ri cul tural in dus try, Marx 

did not think so ci ety would be able to con trol a 

pro cess in which cap i tal is de ter mined to ac cu - 

mu late on an ever-in creas ing ba sis. 

Both Liebig and Marx wanted to dem on - 

strate the im por tance of na ture for so ci ety and 

to base their rec om men da tions for so ci etal 

change on sci ence. The ba sic mes sage of ar ti fi - 

cial fer til izer is that only a com pre hen sive un - 

der stand ing of the chem is try of the world en - 

ables us to in tro duce tech nol o gies with 

pre dict able and con trol la ble ef fects. By and 

large, Liebig was mis taken in his own time, 

and as ge netic en gi neer ing prom ises the even 

larger scale techno-sci en tific plan ning of ag ri - 

cul ture and the en vi ron ment, such a pro gram is 

no less doubt ful. Yet it is the sort of real world 

ex per i men ta tion that Liebig pro posed from 

which les sons about the com plex ity and in de - 

ter mi nate non-lin ear dy nam ics of na ture are 

learned. 

The ar gu ment so far thus draws at ten tion to 

the fact that the Baconian con tract, de spite its 

in sti tu tional and epistemic power, was al ways 

in ter spersed with dif fer ent types of sci en tific 

en deav ors. This be gan with Ba con’s own view 

on the con tract it self as trig ger ing so ci etal 


40

prog ress into an un known fu ture. Al low ing for 

ex per i men ta tion even un der well de scribed in - 

sti tu tional con di tions im plies un pre dict able 

con se quences. There are rea son able ex pec ta - 

tions. But they are, af ter all, of a hy po thet i cal 

char ac ter. The ac cep tance of sci en tific ex per i - 

men ta tion, even if re stricted to the lab o ra tory, 

gives so ci ety an ex per i men tal turn. It is the 

pres ent sit u a tion that makes this his tor i cal 

read ing of Ba con in ter est ing. 

To sum ma rize: Es tab lish ment of the in sti tu - 

tional and epistemic dis tances be tween the 

lab o ra tory world and its so ci etal, per sonal, and 

nat u ral en vi ron ments is a deeply rooted and 

pow er ful myth. How ever, this myth has both 

been ques tioned (Goe the) and re for mu lated 

(Liebig), and can not be the guide line for sci - 

ence as it is em bed ded in the de vel op ing 

knowl edge so ci ety. 

We turn to the so cial sci ences, which of fer a 

still dif fer ent view of ex per i men ta tion, as they 

have been forced from the very be gin ning to 

bring to gether ex per i men tal tri als and changes 

of in di vid ual lives and so cial struc tures. It is 

un avoid able that ex per i men ta tion in the so cial 

sci ences is em bed ded in the real-world. 

Early Attempts at an Experimental Public 

So cial Sci ence 

From its early institutionalization, Amer i - 

can so cial sci ence so ci ol o gists de vel oped a 

per spec tive that, on one hand, adopted the ter - 

mi nol ogy and meth od ol ogy of the nat u ral sci - 

ences while, on the other, viewed so cial set - 

tings, the city, and even the evolv ing so ci ety as 

“lab o ra to ries.” The met a phor has been in use 

at least since the cre ation of the De part ment of 

So ci ol ogy at the found ing of Uni ver sity of 

Chi cago in 1892. When the Uni ver sity was es - 

tab lished, it was be lieved that there was con - 

sid er able po ten tial for so cial re search to pro - 

vide in sights that would of fer guid ance for 

so ci ety. The idea of the city of Chi cago as a so - 

cial lab o ra tory par ex cel lence was one of the 

key sug ges tions of the first pro fes sor of the De - 

part ment, Albion W. Small (1854–1926). The 

idea can be fol lowed in the first Amer i can text - 

book of so ci ol ogy, a mono graph en ti tled An 

In tro duc tion to the Study of So ci ety (1894), 

which Small co-authored with George E. Vin - 

cent. In the in tro duc tion Small and Vin cent de - 

scribed their book bluntly as a “lab o ra tory 

guide” to study ing peo ple in their “ev ery-day 

oc cu pa tions” (1894, 15). Small and Vin cent 

in deed be lieved that their “book is to be com - 

pared with lab o ra tory guides in bi ol ogy” (17). 

It was meant to out line a method through 

which stu dents could study the ex per i ments 

go ing on in so ci ety with “units” de scrib ing 

pro ce dures for spe cific ex per i ments or ob ser - 

va tions. This also in cluded ready-made ex per - 

i ments, or ex per i ments that were “set up” by 

oth ers. Small and Vin cent, along with other so - 

ci ol o gists, be lieved that so cio log i cal re search 

should be un der stood as tak ing place in side a 

so cial lab o ra tory. To Small ev ery out come of a 

so cial pro cess is based on an ex per i ment. In an 

ar ti cle on “the fu ture of so ci ol ogy” Small 

stated: 

All life is ex per i men ta tion. Ev ery spon ta ne ous 

or vol un tary as so ci a tion is an ex per i ment. Ev - 

ery con scious or un con scious ac qui es cence in a 

habit is an ex per i ment. . . . Each civ i li za tion in 

the world to day, each mode of liv ing side by 

side within or in be tween the sev eral civ i li za - 

tions is an ex per i ment. . . . All the lab o ra to ries in 

the world could not carry on enough ex per i - 

ments to mea sure a thim ble ful com pared with 

the world of ex per i men ta tion open to the ob ser - 

va tion of so cial sci ence. The rad i cal dif fer ence 

is that the lab o ra tory sci en tists can ar range their 

own ex per i ments while we so cial sci en tists for 

the most part have our ex per i ments ar ranged for 

us. (Small, 1921, 187–88) 

This strong state ment that all so cial life is 

ex posed to ex per i men tal set tings and en gaged 

in ex per i men tal per for mances needs qual i fi ca - 

tion, since view ing all pur pose ful ac tion as 

bound to risks of trial and er ror would not pro - 

vide a con cep tual ba sis for a new method of ex - 

per i men tal so ci ol ogy. As Er nest Green wood 

(1976) has ar gued the hit-or-miss or the trialand-er 

ror con cep tion of ex per i ment is quite in - 

ad e quate as a sci en tific method. In fact, with - 

out qual i fi ca tions, even the dis tinc tion be - 

tween bi o log i cal and so cial ac tion eas ily 

be comes blurred. Still, Small’s at tempt at 

found ing the idea of ex per i men ta tion not in 

sci en tific method but in so cial life—and 

thereby im port ing the ex per i men tal con di tions 

from the ob ject un der study into the method of 

the so cio log i cal ob server—is a re mark able 

move, even if it cries out for a more pre cise 

spec i fi ca tion of the so ci etal and cul tural con di - 

tions that give so cial life its ex per i men tal char - 

ac ter is tics. 


41

The no tion of so ci ety as a lab o ra tory was 

first ap plied to all so cial set tle ments, but later 

mainly used with ref er ence to cit ies (see 

Deegan, 1988; Park, 1929). Other Chi cago so - 

cial sci en tists work ing in ar eas of so cial work 

and pub lic pol icy, like Charles Henderson, 

used the term so cio log i cal lab o ra tory to in di - 

cate the mix ture of so cial set tle ments and so - 

cio log i cal re search as a uni fied part of the pro - 

gres sive de vel op ment of so ci ety. Ac cord ing to 

Mary Jo Deegan (1988), the im prove ment of 

set tle ments was as so ci ated with so cial work, at 

that time un der taken mainly by women, and 

the de tached ob server ideal of the so ci ol o gists 

was the male per spec tive on the so cial lab o ra - 

tory. Not with stand ing such a de bat able com - 

par i son, for both women and men the so cio - 

log i cal pro duc tion of knowl edge went hand in 

hand with so cial re form. For in stance, the ap - 

pli ca tion of newly ac quired knowl edge to so ci - 

ety and the de sign of strat e gies that would feed 

knowl edge di rectly back into so ci ety, was 

prac ticed in stud ies on de vi ance, on so cial in - 

sur ance, on al le vi a tion of un em ploy ment, and 

on the study of the im pact of im mi grants on so - 

cial change (e.g. Addams, 1970; Henderson, 

1898; Lathrop, 1894; Small and Vin cent, 

1894). It is this re cur sive pro cess be tween 

knowl edge-in formed stra te gic ac tion or in sti - 

tu tional plan ning and me thod i cally guided ob - 

ser va tion of prac ti cal de vel op ment that gives 

the ap proach of Small an op er a tional in ter pre - 

ta tion. It is so ci ety that runs the ex per i ment, 

but so ci ol ogy can be in flu en tial in set ting the 

con di tions. The pros pects of re form as well as 

the dan gers of tech no cratic con trol im plied in 

this ap proach are obvious. 

Jane Addams (1860–1935) ex em pli fied the 

spirit of this view of re search prac tice in so ci - 

ety. Addams, who won world wide rec og ni tion 

in the first third of the twen ti eth cen tury as a pi - 

o neer so cial worker, in 1889 leased a large 

home orig i nally built by Charles Hull to gether 

with her friend El len G. Starr. The two women 

moved in. Hull House was planned to be come 

a set tle ment house like Toynbee Hall in the 

slums of Lon don, which Addams had vis ited a 

few years be fore. In the pref a tory note to a col - 

lec tion of ar ti cles on Hull-House Maps and 

Pa pers, Addams stated that the pri mary ideal 

of the first so cial set tle ment in Chi cago was 

that a group of uni ver sity men should re side in 

the poorer quar ter for the sake of in form ing 

and in flu enc ing the peo ple there to ward better 

lo cal gov ern ment and a wider so cial and in tel - 

lec tual life (Addams, 1970, vii–viii.) (For a 

gen eral ap praisal of set tle ment so ci ol ogy be - 

tween the 1880s and the 1930s see 

Lengermann and Niebrugge-Brantley, 2002). 

To be fair, fif teen years later Addams con - 

fessed that she ob jected to the phrase “so cio - 

log i cal lab o ra tory,” be cause “set tle ments 

should be some thing much more hu man and 

spon ta ne ous than such a phrase con notes” 

(Addams, 1967, 309). In like man ner, Charles 

Henderson re marked that the peo ple work ing 

in so cial set tle ments “very nat u rally re sent the 

no tion that a Set tle ment is a ‘lab o ra tory’ where 

in quis i tive in ves ti ga tors may pur sue meth ods 

of vivi sec tion and tor ture, in or der to il lus trate 

or test so cio log i cal the o ries” (Henderson, 

1899, 183). Al though Henderson un der stands 

this ob jec tion and calls it just, he nev er the less 

be lieves that ex act sci ence in set tle ment work 

is im por tant. He re peat edly points out that the 

best sci en tific work is done by those who ac tu - 

ally par tic i pate and work in the set tle ments 

them selves, since “sci ence and sen ti ment are 

not en e mies, but com rades” (184). In this vein 

also Addams, in al most ev ery chap ter of the 

Hull-House vol ume, talks about ex per i ments 

when re fer ring to pro jects at Hull-House as 

well as to other ac tiv i ties con nected with so cial 

set tle ments. The list ranges from ex per i ments 

with dif fer ent soft drinks as a sub sti tute for al - 

co hol to the gen eral idea of “co op er a tive ex - 

per i ments” when re fer ring to team work with 

other city groups and in sti tu tions. 

It thus seems that ex per i ment for Addams 

also meant some thing that was not nec es sar ily 

to take place in a “sci en tific” and de tached lab - 

o ra tory. How ever, it also did not mean that ev - 

ery so cial ac tion or any mo ment in which a 

change had been ef fected was an ex per i ment. 

Ex per i men ta tion in so ci ety, so Addams and 

oth ers im plic itly sug gest, al ways in cludes an 

ex pected el e ment of un cer tainty that can not be 

fully elim i nated by plan ning. In fact, it should 

not. The mul ti ple di men sions of hu man wellbe 

ing make what we have called the “ex per i - 

men tal sys tem” so com plex that any at tempt to 

de scribe it com pletely, let alone to pre dict its 

course of de vel op ment, would be il lu sory. Or 

to re verse the ar gu ment: Peo ple are not sub ject 

to ex per i ments but ac tively par tic i pate in them. 

It is the peo ple who test the o ret i cal as sump - 

tions about so cial life un der re al is tic con di - 

tions, which are to a cer tain de gree con trol la - 

ble. 


42

Addams’ idea of dif fer ent Hull-House pro - 

jects as ex per i ments also ac knowl edged the 

ex is tence of cer tain bound ary con di tions or the 

con trolled vari a tion of pa ram e ters. In deed, 

this has el e ments of an un der stand ing of ex per - 

i ment as a re form pro cess, a no tion em braced 

prom i nently by Don ald Camp bell (1969) at a 

later date. Hence in this tra di tion so cial pro - 

cesses are in creas ingly un der stood as ex per i - 

ments in cop ing with the struc tural com plex ity 

and the un pre dict able dy nam ics of mod ern so - 

cial city life con ducted by so ci ety on it self. So - 

ci ol o gists can thus be con ceived as de tached 

and ob jec tive sci en tists who de liver ob jec tive 

knowl edge and also as prac ti tio ners who al - 

most si mul ta neously feed knowl edge back 

into so ci ety to im prove so cial con di tions. This 

means that ex per i men ta tion in so ci ety, as un - 

der stood by the Chi cago so ci ol o gists around 

1900, al lows the di rect ap pli ca tion of so cio - 

log i cal knowl edge to set tle ments, which in 

turn feeds back data for the anal y sis of so ci ety, 

and thus trans forms this pro cess into a so cio - 

log i cal ex per i ment. Fur ther more, it places the 

ob serv ing so ci ol o gist in the midst of the ex per - 

i ment itself. 

Sci ence in the City: Rob ert Park’s 

Foundation of Urban Sociology 

Tak ing up the no tion of ex per i ment em - 

braced by the early found ers of the dis ci pline, 

Rob ert E. Park and Er nest Bur gess in their in - 

flu en tial text book In tro duc tion to the Sci ence 

of So ci ol ogy (Park and Bur gess, 1972) along 

with other writ ings by Park, mar shaled the 

early Chi cago ideas of proto-par tic i pant ob ser - 

va tion into a widely re spected re search pro - 

gram. Ac cord ing to Park, the city was to be 

treated as a so cial lab o ra tory. The con cept 

would in clude the walls, the houses, tools, 

build ings, and cir cu lat ing things (Park, 1915). 

In this ap proach, all parts of the en vi ron ment 

are in ter de pen dent and moved by in di vid ual, 

col lec tive, and eco log i cal forces (see Park, 

1915; 1925a; 1925b; 1929; 1936; and 1939). 

In or der to un der stand the cha otic de vel op - 

ment of the great cit ies it was, as Park later 

termed it, “the nat u ral ar eas” that should be in - 

ves ti gated. The nat u ral area de scribes a unit of 

in ves ti ga tion as dis tin guished from the “ar ti fi - 

cially” de fined cul tural or po lit i cal area: 

A re gion is called a “nat u ral area” be cause it co - 

mes into ex is tence with out de sign, and per - 

forms a func tion, as in the case of the slum, that 

may be con trary to any body’s de sire. It is a nat u - 

ral area be cause it has a nat u ral his tory. (Park, 

1929, 9) 

Ev ery city, ar gued Park, has such seg re - 

gated ar eas in the forms of busi ness dis tricts, 

dwell ings, sat el lite cit ies, slums, and cer tain 

im mi gra tion belts. For Park, plan ning in so ci - 

ety is an at tempt to di rect the eco log i cal ba sis 

of so ci ety. But this is not as easy as it seems. He 

wrote: 

Cit ies are al ways get ting out of hand. The ac tual 

plan of the city is never a mere ar ti fact, it is al - 

ways quite as much a prod uct of na ture as of de - 

sign. (Park, 1925a, 674) 

Harvey Zorbaugh, one of Park’s stu dents, also 

ob served: 

The city is cu ri ously re sis tant to the fi ats of man. 

Like the ro bot, cre ated by man, it goes its own 

way in dif fer ent to the will of its creator. Re - 

form ers have stormed, the av a ri cious have spec - 

u lated, and thought ful have planned. But again 

and again their pro grams have met with ob sta - 

cles. Hu man na ture of fers some op po si tion; tra - 

di tions and in sti tu tions of fer more; and—of es - 

pe cial sig nif i cance—the very phys i cal 

con fig u ra tion of the city is un yield ing to 

change. (Zorbaugh, 1926, 188) 

In the un der stand ing of the Chi cago school 

of so ci ol ogy the mod ern city and thus mod ern 

so ci ety in gen eral were in part nat u ral phe nom - 

ena. There is hu man na ture and there is the 

phys i cal en vi ron ment that works to gether or 

against hu man cul ture. In thus point ing out the 

“nat u ral” side in this un der stand ing of the city, 

Park, Zorbaugh, and oth ers are simply call ing 

spe cial at ten tion to the in ter nal dy nam ics of 

mod ern so ci ety, which re sult from mod ern 

means of plan ning and pro duc tion. Ev ery plan 

hu mans set out is ac tu ally tested within their 

own so ci ety. Hu mans make nat u ral ar eas, but 

their dy nam ics ap pear to be “nat u ral.” Quite 

of ten, it is a so ci ety rad i cal ized against the 

paths and cat e go ries of their own plan ning. 

This, in turn, tells the ob serv ing so ci ol o gist 

some thing about so ci ety. 

In this ap proach the so ci etal dy namic is al - 

ways per ceived in terms of its de pend ency on 

the ma te rial en vi ron ment. In the cha otic cityjun 

gle the unity of re search was what Park 

termed the “nat u ral area.” Nat u ral ar eas can be 


43

e garded as poles of or der in an oth er wise dis - 

or dered world. What com plex ity the o rists to - 

day call is lands of sta bil ity in a sea of dis or der 

is, in a cer tain sense, iden ti cal to what the so ci - 

ol o gists of the Chi cago School would have 

said about their nat u ral ur ban ar eas: ar eas of 

tem po rary, and al ways un cer tain, sta bil ity. 

Changes that “tend to have the char ac ter of 

some thing that is at least in dig e nous to the sit - 

u a tion and the so ci ety in which it ex ists” (Park, 

1939, 8) may evolve. 

Park thus in cor po rated both the nat u ral and 

the cul tural into his view of the city as a lab o ra - 

tory. In this con text he of ten stressed the com - 

plex ity and com pli ca tion of so cial re la tions, 

while stress ing how this of fered new pos si bil i - 

ties, es pe cially in cit ies (e.g., 1915, 608). This, 

for Park, is that “which jus ti fies the view that 

would make the city a lab o ra tory or a clinic in 

which hu man na ture and so cial pro cesses may 

be most con ve niently and prof it ably stud ied” 

(1915, 612). In the re vised ver sion of his clas - 

sic piece, “The City,” Park stated that “the city, 

es pe cially the great city, in which more than 

else where hu man re la tions are likely to be im - 

per sonal and ra tio nal . . . is in a very real sense 

a lab o ra tory for the in ves ti ga tion of col lec tive 

be hav ior” (Park, 1925b, 31). In terms of Park’s 

per cep tions, the de vel op ment of the city and of 

so ci ety at large can thus be un der stood as as so - 

ci ated with pro cesses that “ex per i men tally” 

re sult in a better un der stand ing of how so ci ety 

“works.” 

In Chicago: An Ex per i ment in So cial Sci - 

ence Re search (1929), the ed i tors Thomas 

Smith and Leslie White gath ered twelve ar ti - 

cles on the re search done in the city of Chi - 

cago. The lead ar ti cle was Park’s “The City as 

a So cial Lab o ra tory,” where he again de - 

scribed the city as “the nat u ral hab i tat of civ i - 

lized man.” The city rep re sents the most con - 

sis tent and suc cess ful at tempt to re make the 

world in which peo ple live. How ever: 

If the city is the world which man cre ated, it is 

the world in which he is hence forth con demned 

to live. Thus, in di rectly and with out any clear 

sense of the na ture of his task, in mak ing the city 

man has re made him self. It is in some such 

sense and in some such con nec tion as this that 

we may think of the city as a so cial lab o ra tory. 

(Park, 1929, 1) 

Since the city “mag ni fies, spreads out, and 

ad ver tises hu man na ture in all its var i ous man - 

i fes ta tions” it is “of all places the one in which 

to dis cover the se crets of hu man hearts, and to 

study hu man na ture and so ci ety” (19). In the 

pref ace to Nels An der son’s mono graph The 

Hobo, Park stated: “If it is true that man made 

the city, it is quite as true that the city is now 

mak ing man” (Park, 1923, v). For Park, so ci ol - 

ogy is on its way to be com ing “an ex per i men - 

tal sci ence,” just as he had pre vi ously ar gued 

that: 

ex per i ments are go ing on in ev ery field of so cial 

life, in in dus try, in pol i tics, and in re li gion. In all 

these fields men are guided by some im plicit or 

ex plicit the ory of the sit u a tion, but this the ory is 

not of ten stated in the form of a hy poth e sis and 

sub jected to a test of the neg a tive in stances. (In 

Park and Bur gess, 1921, 45; em pha sis added) 

Here Park elab o rate the idea of Small’s that so - 

ci ety it self is op er a tive in de sign ing so cial ex - 

per i ments. Again, for Park the city is the most 

prom i nent place for cre at ing and sup port ing 

the ex per i men tal spirit. But if ex per i men ta tion 

is to mean more than sim ple trial and er ror, the - 

ory and de sign of ac tion must be taken se ri - 

ously. It is this move that gives Park’s re flec - 

tion upon real life ex per i ments per formed in 

all fields of so ci ety a fur ther boost. 

In or der to gain from these ex per i ments, 

Park’s idea is that “the prac ti cal so ci ol o gist 

must have the abil ity to en ter into the in ner life 

and share the feel ings and sen ti ments of all 

sorts of peo ple.” And he con tin ues, “The 

method to which I re fer is the in ten sive study 

of the typ i cal and in di vid ual” (Park, 1913, 

167f.). For Park, im plic itly, an ex per i men tal 

method in so ci ol ogy would have to be un der - 

stood as a way of get ting in side group be hav - 

ior, of gen er at ing data in “nat u rally” oc cur ring 

con texts and al low ing in ter pre tive so cial sci - 

en tists to get as close as pos si ble to their sub - 

ject mat ter. What Park con tended was that 

mod ern so ci ety had turned it self into a place 

that could be un der stood as the lab o ra tory for 

in ves ti gat ing so ci ol o gists. With this type of ex - 

per i ment go ing on, the so ci ol o gist as ex per i - 

menter was bound to par tic i pate in com plex 

net works of ac tors im bed ded in in sti tu tional 

and nat u ral en vi ron ments they could not com - 

pletely con trol. Even less could they be con - 

trolled by so ci ol ogy. 

A sci en tific ob server of so ci ety has to par - 

tic i pate in the ex per i ment that so ci ety is un der - 

tak ing on it self. What dis tin guished Park’s 


44

ideas from those of an ear lier gen er a tion was 

be lief in the ex is tence of an or ga nized re search 

pro cess and re form in step with evo lu tion ary 

changes that iden ti fied the place of so ci ol ogy 

in so ci ety. In Park’s and his col leagues’ view, 

the ap pli ca tion of newly gained so cio log i cal 

knowl edge is in turn able to tell the ob serv ing 

so ci ol o gist some thing about the fun da men tals 

of so ci ety. From this per spec tive the pro duc - 

tion of so cial sci en tific knowl edge and its ap - 

pli ca tion in so ci ety are cy cli cally inter-de - 

pend ant and can not be treated as if they were 

de tached from one an other. So ci ol ogy is thus 

part of the ex per i ment, since so ci ol ogy has al - 

ways been and al ways must be a part of that re - 

al ity it seeks to ex plain. This rad i cal view pro - 

vides a ba sis for cer tain as pects of a new 

phi los o phy of sci ence policy. 

Out look: Sci ence Pol icy and Real-World 

Ex per i men ta tion 

So ci ol o gists’ con di tions for do ing re search 

in so ci ety are quite dif fer ent from those of nat - 

u ral sci en tists in the lab o ra tory. But their po si - 

tion is not an iso lated one. Many fields of re - 

search in the so cial, po lit i cal, eco nomic, 

psy cho log i cal, ed u ca tional, en vi ron men tal, 

health, and other sci ences share the fea tures of 

prac ti cal in volve ment in the changes they un - 

der take, in flu ence, and mon i tor—but not ini ti - 

ate and con trol at will. Given the fact that these 

fields of re search not only in crease, but be - 

come ever more im por tant con stit u ent parts of 

so ci etal change, the ques tion arises as to 

whether their epistemological self-un der - 

stand ing is in need of be ing re placed by one 

more ap pro pri ate to this in volve ment. The 

strength of the lab o ra tory sci ences can not be 

doubted as long as their rights to de ter mine 

their ar ti fi cial re al i ties are taken for granted. 

Their weak nesses are re vealed as soon as 

knowl edge gained un der these spe cial con di - 

tions is ap plied to the com plex nat u ral and so - 

cial re al ity in which we live. The strength of 

the “em bed ded” sci ences is to de fine re search 

as part of this com plex world, and knowl edge 

pro duc tion as an el e ment of change. But this 

strength can only be played out when the 

weak nesses with re spect to the power of def i - 

ni tion and con trol are ac counted for. One way 

to do so is to take real-world ex per i men ta tion 

se ri ously. 

Don ald Camp bell (1969) tried to bind to - 

gether a pol icy of so cial re form with a new 

evo lu tion ary epis te mol ogy of sci ence on the 

ba sis of so cial ex per i men ta tion. He had two 

points of de par ture. On the one hand, re form 

pro jects on all lev els of a rap idly chang ing so - 

ci ety are ur gent and can not be post poned un til 

ev ery de tail of fu ture plan ning has been pre - 

cisely pre dicted. In ac tion is a form of ac tion. If 

po lit i cal lead er ship waits for the ul ti mate sci - 

en tific truth, then it mis uses sci ence as a source 

for po lit i cal (non-)ac tion. If, on the other hand, 

sci en tists pro pose to de liver re li able knowl - 

edge in those com plex fields of so ci etal 

change, they grossly over es ti mate their com - 

pe tence. The way out of the di lemma is a mu tu - 

ally agreed upon strat egy of ex per i men tal 

learn ing. Re cent at tempts in eco log i cal de sign 

pro jects, which can be seen as car ry ing for - 

ward the meth ods dis cussed above in new 

fields, deal with the prob lem of not know ing 

be fore the ex per i ment whether the so cial and 

eco log i cal risks are ac cept able (see e.g., 

Gobster, 2001; Gross, 2003a; Hoffmann- 

Riem, 2003). 

Ne go ti a tions take place be tween dif fer ent 

stake holders and “cit i zen sci en tists” who par - 

tic i pate as fully val ued ac tors with re spect to 

goals and the man age ment of sur prises stem - 

ming both from so cial and nat u ral sys tems. In 

or der to take such a pro ce dure se ri ously, learn - 

ing must be re cur sive, since knowl edge ap pli - 

ca tion is part of the dis cov ery pro cess. The 

con tex tual ap pli ca tion of sci ence aims at the 

im ple men ta tion of “ex per i ments in the real 

world.” Of ten times ex per i ments lead to sur - 

prises, which cause trou ble and pro vide op por - 

tu ni ties for learn ing. Such en deav ors ren der 

ob so lete the ideal of sci ence as a de tached and 

aus tere form of knowl edge pro duc tion and re - 

place it with a re cur sive learn ing pro cess in 

which sci ence lis tens both to dif fer ent in ter ests 

and un ex pected nat u ral ac tiv i ties. Knowl edge 

pro duc tion in the real world be yond the lab o ra - 

tory must be able to em bed the learn ing pro - 

cess in such a way that sur prises can be ab - 

sorbed with fewer prob lems than in tra di tional 

man age ment strat e gies. 

As real-world ex per i ments are of ten part of 

the pub lic’s ev ery day life, the in volve ment of 

the pub lic can de liver a more ro bust le git i ma - 

tion ba sis. Ex perts are in creas ingly forced to 

open the bor ders and risks of the o ret i cal mod - 

els, which re duces the ex tent of dis ap point - 

ments and in creases the readi ness to learn from 

ear lier mis takes. For ex am ple, res to ra tion pro - 

jects (see Gobster, 2001; Gobster and Barro, 


45

2000; Gross, 2003a; Jor dan, 2003) have 

proven that time-con sum ing hear ings, vol un - 

teer group or ga ni za tions, and stake holder in - 

volve ment have, in the long run, been more 

suc cess ful than pre vi ous pro jects. Orig i nal 

pro ject de signs have been re peat edly re fined 

and spec i fied as lo cal eco log i cal and so cial re - 

al i ties are taken into ac count. Per haps fu ture 

sci ence pol icy should no lon ger fo cus on the 

bound ary be tween sci ence in the lab o ra tory 

and the non-sci en tific ap pli ca tion of re sults in 

the real world, but rather on the prob lem solv - 

ing ca pac i ties of “em bed ded sci ence” with its 

fea tures of re cur sive learn ing and so cial ro - 

bust ness. Un like Mi chael Gib bons et al. 

(1994), who in tro duced the term “ro bust 

knowl edge” (see also Nowotny et al., 2001, 

168), we do not be lieve that the no tion of ro - 

bust ness is a well cho sen qual i fi ca tion of a new 

kind of knowl edge. Rather, ro bust ness spec i - 

fies re search strat e gies that ac count for lo cal 

con texts, in te grate het er o ge neous ac tors, ex - 

pect sur prises, and ad just by col lec tive learn - 

ing. So cial ro bust ness at tempts to com pen sate 

rather than accomodate un cer tainty of knowl - 

edge and risks of ap pli ca tion. 

There are res er va tions to be made. There 

can be lit tle doubt that po lit i cal and sci en tific 

strat e gies founded on the prin ci ple of re cur sive 

learn ing usu ally face poor pros pects. Pol i ti - 

cians who dis play such flex i bil ity in terms of 

means and ends rarely sur vive the crit i cism of 

op po nents, the me dia, and in ter est groups. Sci - 

en tists, who prom ise to gain the knowl edge 

needed for solv ing ur gent prob lems by try ing 

and learn ing, face sim i lar crit i cism. Ap par - 

ently, the idea of gen er at ing ro bust ness of 

knowl edge by ini ti at ing pro cesses of col lec - 

tive learn ing is a lost cause when the re ceived 

al ter na tive of do ing lab o ra tory re search and 

wait ing for re li able re sults is avail able. Es pe - 

cially with re spect to re duc ing haz ard ous risks 

the ad van tages of lab o ra tory re search are 

badly needed. If, how ever, knowl edge in com - 

plex fields of ac tion can only be achieved by a 

col lec tive and ex per i men tal strat egy of learn - 

ing, then a change in the un der ly ing phi los o - 

phy of sci ence pol icy is re quired. 

The shift may be as fun da men tal as the 

Baconian turn to ward in sti tu tion al ized lab o ra - 

tory sci ence. Ba con pro posed that pub lic ac - 

cep tance of the ex per i men tal method in lab o - 

ra tory re search would be a so ci etal ex per i ment 

that pol i tics should try out. A new phi los o phy 

of sci ence pol icy can lay the foun da tions for 

the pub lic ac cep tance of col lec tive learn ing 

pro cesses within the frame work of real-world 

ex per i men ta tion. It would aim at for mu lat ing a 

new con tract be tween sci ence and so ci ety that 

makes sci ence more pub lic and mem bers of 

the pub lic more ready to en gage in knowl edge 

pro duc tion rel e vant to shap ing their lives, 

com mu ni ties, and en vi ron ments. 

REFERENCES 

Addams, Jane. (1970 [1895]) “Pref a tory Note,” in Jane 

Addams, Hull-House Maps and Pa pers: Res i dents of 

Hull-House (New York: Arno Press), vii–viii. 

Addams, Jane. (1967 [1910]) Twenty Years at Hull- 

House (with Au to bio graph i cal Notes). New York: 

Macmillan. 

An der son, Nels. (1923) The Hobo: The So ci ol ogy of the 

Home less Man. Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press. 

Bryson, Mi chael A. (2002) Vi sions of the Land: Sci ence, 

Lit er a ture, and the Amer i can En vi ron ment from the Era 

of Ex plo ra tion to the Age of Ecol ogy. Charlottesville: 

Uni ver sity Press of Vir ginia. 

Camp bell, Don ald T. (1969) “Re forms as Ex per i ments,” 

Amer i can Psy chol o gist 24, no.4: 409–29. 

Cart wright, Nancy. (1999) The Dap pled World: A Study 

of the Bound aries of Sci ence. Cam bridge: Cam bridge 

University Press. 

Cook, Thomas D., and Don ald T. Camp bell. (1979) 

Quasi-Ex per i men ta tion: De sign and Anal y sis Is sues for 

Field Set tings. Chi cago: Rand McNally. 

Daele, Wolfgang van den. (1977) “Die soziale 

Konstruktion der Wissenschaft: Institutionalisierung 

und Def i ni tion der Positiven Wissenschaft in der 

Zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts,” in Gernot 

Böhme, Wolfgang van den Daele and Wolfgang Krohn, 

eds. Experimentelle Philosophie. Frank furt: 

Suhrkamp), 131–82. 

Deegan, Mary Jo. (1988) Jane Addams and the Men of the 

Chi cago School, 1892–1918. New Bruns wick, NJ: 

Transaction Publishers. 

Frodeman, Rob ert. (2003) Geo-Logic: Break ing Ground 

be tween Phi los o phy and the Earth Sci ences. Al bany: 

State Uni ver sity of New York Press. 


46

Goe the, Johann Wolfgang. (1988) “The Ex per i ment as 

Me di a tor be tween Ob ject and Sub ject,” in Douglas 

Miller, ed., Goethe: The Col lected Works—Sci en tific 

Stud ies, vol. 12 (Prince ton: Prince ton Uni ver sity Press), 

11–17. 

Gib bons, Mi chael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Si - 

mon Schwartzman, Pe ter Scott, and Mar tin Trow. 

(1994) The New Pro duc tion of Knowl edge: The Dy nam - 

ics of Science and Re search in Con tem po rary Societies. 

London: Sage. 

Gobster, Paul H. (2001) “Vi sions of Na ture: Con flict and 

Compatibility in Urban Park Restoration,” Landscape 

and Ur ban Plan ning 56, nos. 1–2: 35–51. 

Gobster, Paul H., and Su san C. Barro. (2000) “Ne go ti at - 

ing Na ture: Mak ing Res to ra tion Hap pen in an Ur ban 

Park Con text,” in Paul H. Gobster and Bruce Hull, eds., 

Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences 

and Humanities (Covelo, CA: Is land Press), 185–207. 

Gooding, Da vid. (1990) Ex per i ment and the Mak ing of 

Mean ing: Hu man Agency in Sci en tific Ob ser va tion and 

Ex per i ment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Ac a demic Pub lish ers. 

Green wood, Er nest. (1976 [1945]) Ex per i men tal So ci ol - 

ogy: A Study in Method. New York: Oc ta gon Books. 

Gross, Matthias. (2003a) In vent ing Na ture: Eco log i cal 

Res to ra tion by Pub lic Ex per i ments. Lanham, MD: 

Rowman and Littlefield/Lexington Books. 

Gross, Matthias. (2003b) “Caught Be tween the Na ture/ 

So ci ety Di vide: En vi ron men tal His tory at a Cross - 

roads,” His tory and Phi los o phy of the Life Sci ences 25: 

93–107. 

Guston, Da vid. (2000) Between Politics and Science: As - 

sur ing the In teg rity and Pro duc tiv ity of Re search. Cam - 

bridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Hack ing, Ian. (1983) Rep re sent ing and In ter ven ing: In - 

tro duc tory Top ics in the Phi los o phy of Nat u ral Sci ence. 

New York: Cam bridge Uni ver sity Press. 

Harkavy, Ira, and John L. Puckett. (1994) “Les sons from 

Hull-House for the Contemporary Urban University,” 

Social Service Review 68: 299–321. 

Henderson, Charles R. (1899) So cial Set tle ments. New 

York: Lentilhon. 

Hoffmann-Riem, Holger. (2003) Die Sanierung des 

Sempachersees: Eine Fallstudie über ökologische 

Lernprozesse. Mu nich: Ökom Verlag. 

Jor dan, Wil liam R., III. (2003) The Sun flower For est: 

Eco log i cal Res to ra tion and the New Com mu nion with 

Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Krohn, Wolfgang, and Wolf Schäfer. (1982) “Ag ri cul - 

tural Chem is try: A Goal-Ori ented Sci ence,” in Barry 

Barnes and Da vid Edge, eds., Sci ence in Con text: Read - 

ings in the So ci ol ogy of Sci ence (Cam bridge, MA: MIT 

Press), 187–95. 

Krohn, Wolfgang, and Pe ter Weingart. (1987) “Nu clear 

Power as a Social Experiment — European Political 

‘Fall Out’ from the Chernobyl Melt down,” Science, 

Technology and Human Values 12, no. 2: 52–58. 

Krohn, Wolfgang, and Johannes Weyer. (1994) “So ci ety 

as a Laboratory: The Social Risks of Experimental Re - 

search,” Sci ence and Pub lic Pol icy 21, no. 3: 173–83. 

Krohn, Wolfgang. (1998) “Goethes Versuch über den 

Versuch,“ in Pe ter Matussek, ed., Goe the und die 

Verzeitlichung der Natur (München: Beck), 399–414. 

Krohn, Wolfgang. (2003) “Waste Sites as Experiments: 

Producing Knowledge about Waste,” pa per pre sented at 

the Con fer ence on New Di rec tions in In ter dis ci plin ary 

Re search, Penn syl va nia State Uni ver sity, Oc to ber. 

Avail able on line: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/iwt/ 

realworld. 

Lathrop, Julia C. (1894) “Dis cus sion: Hull-House as a 

Laboratory of Sociological Investigation,” Proceedings 

of the Na tional Con fer ence of Char i ties 21, 313–20. 

Lengermann, Pa tri cia M., and Jill Niebrugge-Brantley. 

(2002) “Back to the Fu ture: Set tle ment So ci ol ogy, 

1885–1930,” Amer i can So ci ol o gist 33, no. 3: 5–20. 

Levidow, Les. (2003) “Pre cau tion ary Risk As sess ment of 

Bt Maize: What Un cer tain ties?” Jour nal of In sect Pa - 

thology 83, no. 2: 113–17. 

Liebig, Justus von. (1840) Die organische Chemie in 

ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie. 

Braunschweig: Vieweg. 

Liebig, Justus von. (1944) Bemerkungen über das 

Verhältnis der Thierchemie zur Thier-Physiologie. Hei - 

delberg: Winter. 

Lyman, Stan ford M. (1992) Militarism, Imperialism, and 

Ra cial Ac com mo da tion: An Anal y sis and In ter pre ta tion 

of the Early Writ ings of Rob ert E. Park. Fayetteville: 

University of Arkansas Press. 

Nowotny, Helga, Pe ter Scott, and Mi chael Gib bons. 

(2001) Re-Think ing Sci ence: Knowl edge and the Pub lic 

in an Age of Un cer tainty. Ox ford: Pol ity Press. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1906) “Tuskegee and Its Mis sion,” Col - 

ored Amer i can Mag a zine 10, no. 5: 347–54. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1908) “Ag ri cul tural Ex ten sion among 

the Ne groes,” World To-Day 15, no. 8: 820–26. 


47

Park, Rob ert E. (1913) “In for mal Con fer ence: Is it Pos si - 

ble for Amer i can So ci ol o gists to Agree upon a Con - 

struc tive Pro gram?” Pub li ca tions of the Amer i can 

Sociological Society 8: 167–68. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1915) “The City: Sug ges tions for the In - 

ves ti ga tion of Hu man Be hav ior in the City En vi ron - 

ment,” Amer i can Jour nal of So ci ol ogy 20, no. 5: 577– 

612. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1923) “Ed i tor’s Pref ace,” in Nels An der - 

son, The Hobo: The So ci ol ogy of the Home less Man 

(Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press), v–viii. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1924) “The Sig nif i cance of So cial Re - 

search in So cial Ser vice,” Jour nal of Ap plied So ci ol ogy 

8: 263–67. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1925a) “Com mu nity Or ga ni za tion and 

the Ro man tic Tem per,” So cial Forces 3, no. 4: 673–77. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1925b) “The City: Sug ges tions for the 

In ves ti ga tion of Hu man Be hav ior in the Ur ban En vi ron - 

ment,” in Rob ert E. Park, Er nest W. Bur gess, and 

Roderick D. McKenzie, eds., The City (Chi cago: Uni - 

ver sity of Chi cago Press), 1–46. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1926) “The Con cept of Po si tion in So ci - 

ol ogy,” Pub li ca tions of the Amer i can So cio log i cal 

Society 20: 1–14. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1929) “The City as a So cial Lab o ra tory,” 

in Thomas V. Smith and Leslie D. White, eds., Chicago: 

An Ex per i ment in So cial Sci ence Re search (Chi cago: 

Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press), 1–19. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1936) “Hu man Ecol ogy,” Amer i can 

Jour nal of So ci ol ogy 42: 1–15. 

Park, Rob ert E. (1939) “Sym bi o sis and So cial iza tion: A 

Frame of Ref er ence for the Study of So ci ety,” Amer i can 

Jour nal of So ci ol ogy 45: 1–25. 

Park, Rob ert E., and Er nest W. Bur gess. (1972 [1921]) In - 

tro duc tion to the Sci ence of So ci ol ogy. Chi cago: Uni ver - 

sity of Chi cago Press. 

Pickering, An drew (1995). The Man gle of Prac tice: 

Time, Agency, and Sci ence. Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi - 

cago Press. 

Pielke, Jr., Roger, and Dan iel Sarewitz. (2002) “Wanted: 

Scientific Leadership on Climate,” Is sues in Sci ence 

and Tech nol ogy 19, no. 2: 27–30. 

Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. (1997) To ward a His tory of 

Epistemic Things: Syn the siz ing Pro teins in the Test 

Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 

Serres, Michel. (1995) The Natural Contract. Trans. Eliz - 

a beth Mac Ar thur and Wil liam Paulson. Ann Ar bor: 

Uni ver sity of Mich i gan Press. 

Small, Albion W., and George E. Vin cent. (1894) An In - 

tro duc tion to the Sci ence of So ci ety. New York: Amer i - 

can Books. 

Small, Albion W. (1921) “The Fu ture of So ci ol ogy,” Pub - 

li ca tions of the Amer i can So cio log i cal So ci ety 15: 174– 

93. 

Smith, Thomas V., and Leslie D. White, eds. (1929) 

Chicago: An Ex per i ment in So cial Sci ence Re search. 

Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press. 

Weyer, Johannes. (1994) “Ac tor Net works and High Risk 

Tech nol o gies: The Case of the Gulf War,” Sci ence and 

Pub lic Pol icy 21, no. 5: 321–34. 

Zorbaugh, Harvey W. (1926) “The Nat u ral Ar eas of the 

City,” Publications of the American Sociological Society 

20: 188–97. 


48

ON THE AU TON OMY OF THE SCI ENCES 

Philip Kitcher 

There are two quite dif fer ent kinds of is sues 

about the re la tions be tween the sci ences, on 

the one hand, and val ues, on the other. From at 

least the nine teenth cen tury on, schol ars from a 

va ri ety of dis ci plines have won dered whether 

in creas ing sci en tific un der stand ing of na ture 

and our place in it would trans form our con - 

cep tion of moral, po lit i cal, and so cial val ues; 

the most prom i nent ven tures of this kind ex - 

plore the bear ing of evo lu tion ary bi ol ogy on 

our eth i cal claims. The ques tions that arise 

from these in ves ti ga tions are com plex and un - 

set tled. 

My aim here is to pur sue a sec ond type of 

ques tion, one that strikes many peo ple—es pe - 

cially sci en tists—as de cided: What is the role 

of moral, so cial, and po lit i cal val ues in the 

prac tice of the sci ences? Those who be lieve 

that this is sue is set tled typ i cally be lieve that 

the an swer can be given in a sin gle word: 

None. 

But that can’t be quite right. Even those 

who are most in sis tent that sci en tific re search 

is to be a value-free zone will ac knowl edge, on 

re flec tion, that the con duct of that re search is 

con strained by moral norms. No body is likely 

to in sist that sci en tists may le git i mately pur sue 

any means in their ef forts to at tain their 

goals—for that would be to per mit the 

Tuskegee syph i lis ex per i ment, the prac tices of 

the Nazi doc tors, and a host of less re pug nant, 

but still mor ally rep re hen si ble, in ter ven tions. 

We could re solve prob lems about the rel a tive 

strengths of the ef fects of na ture and of nur ture 

by try ing to breed pure lines of chil dren and 

rear ing them in care fully con trolled and var ied 

en vi ron ments, but I don’t think there’s likely to 

be much en thu si asm for ex per i ments of that 

kind. 

Peo ple who cel e brate the value-free dom of 

the sci ences will surely want to draw a dis tinc - 

tion in re sponse to these ex am ples. The means 

that re search ers un der take to try to reach their 

sci en tific goals are to be sub ject to moral 

norms; but the goals them selves are not sub ject 

to moral ap praisal. Be hind that claim stands a 

wide spread in ter pre ta tion of the way in which 

the iden tity of the sci en tific role was forged in 

the early mod ern pe riod. On this pop u lar view, 

an im por tant as pect of the sci en tific rev o lu tion 

was the de nial that the search for truth could in 

any way be con strained by con sid er ations of 

the con flict be tween the deliverances of the 

sci ences and what are ac cepted as moral, so - 

cial, or po lit i cal val ues. Mod ern sci ence was 

founded in a dec la ra tion of in de pend ence. 

I’m not go ing to probe the ac cu racy of this 

his tor i cal view in any de tail, for what in ter ests 

me is the dec la ra tion of in de pend ence and its 

mer its. I want to start by try ing to be as clear as 

pos si ble about what is in tended by those who 

think of the goals of sci ences as in de pend ent of 

moral val ues (and other non-epistemic val - 

ues). 

Here is a rel a tively sim ple way to state the 

dec la ra tion of in de pend ence: The sci ences are 

ded i cated to the pur suit of truth, and sci en tists 

are per mit ted—even obliged—to seek and to 

iden tify the truth whether or not what they dis - 

cover con flicts with prin ci ples that ex press 

moral, so cial, or po lit i cal val ues. Now there 

are many schol ars who would ob ject to this 

for mu la tion on the grounds that it makes use of 

a ques tion able no tion (that of truth), or be - 

cause they think that the aims of the sci ences 

are better rep re sented in other terms (for ex am - 

ple as the pro vi sion of mod els that agree with 

re al ity in par tic u lar re spects and to par tic u lar 

de grees, or as the con struc tion of mod els and 

tech nol o gies that work). I don’t pro pose to en - 

ter these de bates. I have no al lergy to talk of 

truth, nor am I gripped by skep ti cism that sci - 

en tific re search ever at tains truth. 

A more im por tant short com ing of the for - 

mu la tion can be brought out by fo cus ing on the 

no tion of “con flict.” If this is un der stood in 

terms of the log i cal re la tion of con tra dic tion, 

then it is easy to rec og nize the mo ti va tion be - 

hind the dec la ra tion. The au ton omy of the sci - 

ences is im por tant pre cisely be cause, if the 

course of re search were to pro duce claims at 

odds with state ments ex press ing ac cepted 

moral val ues (say) that would be the oc ca sion 

for re vis ing our views about what is valu able; 

and it is a mis take to con fine our selves to what 

is cur rently ac cepted by al low ing the val ues 

we have to con strain the re search that is 


49

done—we should n’t deny our selves the oc ca - 

sions for im prove ment. 

But those who worry about the dec la ra tion 

of in de pend ence have, I think, a dif fer ent con - 

cep tion of con flict in mind. They think that the 

ac cep tance of cer tain deliverances of sci en tific 

re search, deliverances that are true, would pro - 

duce, in the ac tual his tor i cal and po lit i cal con - 

text in which peo ple find them selves, con se - 

quences that are mor ally un ac cept able. A 

clas sic ex am ple of the sort of con flict en vis - 

aged here is that of the dis cov ery of sources of 

enor mous en ergy in some odd com bi na tion of 

ev ery day in gre di ents—by mix ing cab bage, 

card board, and cat nip in just the right pro por - 

tions you can gen er ate ex traor di narily pow er - 

ful ex plo sives. If some re searcher, like the fic - 

tional Möbius in Dürrenmatt’s Die Physiker, 

were to pur sue re search along sim i lar lines, 

then it would be ab surd to ap peal to the dec la - 

ra tion of in de pend ence to de fend the in ves ti ga - 

tion. Hence both means and ends are sub ject to 

moral eval u a tion. 

Al though I be lieve that ex am ples like this 

show that some thing is amiss with the dec la ra - 

tion, I don’t think they ex pose the deep est dif fi - 

culty. To rec og nize the real trou ble, it’s nec es - 

sary to scru ti nize a no tion that many take for 

granted, the idea of the “search for truth.” Here 

it helps to re call Karl Pop per’s fa mous in dict - 

ment of the view that sci ence starts with ob ser - 

va tion. If you tell sci en tists to go and ob serve, 

they will, quite prop erly, ask what it is they are 

sup posed to be ob serv ing. By the same to ken, 

if you ad vise the com mu nity of sci en tists to 

seek truth, they will rightly won der which 

truths they are sup posed to be seek ing. 

There are fa mil iar re sponses. One is to say 

that the sci ences seek all the truths, the com - 

plete ac count of our uni verse. A lit tle re flec - 

tion will sug gest that this is not ob vi ously co - 

her ent—for there are uncountably many 

lan guages, each with in fi nitely many truths; 

even if it is co her ent, it is not some thing at 

which our spe cies could aim; nor would we 

want it if we had it, for the vast por tion of the 

ocean of truth is ut terly un in ter est ing. A more 

plau si ble line would be to con tend that the 

truths at which the sci ences aim are the fun da - 

men tal ones, those that some how per vade na - 

ture—the laws of na ture, if you like, or the di - 

vine rulebook. That con cep tion may have had 

more ap peal in the sev en teenth cen tury, but it 

is far less plau si ble to day. For we have no rea - 

son to think that any set of fun da men tal truths, 

even a won der fully re fined the ory of mat ter, 

space, and time, could en com pass all the truths 

that mat ter to us; nor do we have good grounds 

for think ing that all the ar eas of in quiry in 

which hu man be ings are in ter ested are 

founded upon laws; many of the sci ences that 

flour ish to day are deeply com mit ted to iden ti - 

fy ing par tic u lar mech a nisms that work in par - 

tic u lar con texts in par tic u lar sys tems (rang ing 

from cells to subduction zones). 

The ob vi ous an swer to the ques tion “Which 

truths?” is to in voke hu man con cerns, in deed 

the hu man con cerns that peo ple have right 

now. The aims of the sci ences are to find the 

cor rect an swers to the ques tions that mat ter to 

us, at our par tic u lar mo ment in his tory. Or, 

more ex actly, rec og niz ing that cor rect ness is - 

n’t al ways quite nec es sary for our needs, the 

sci ences aim to an swer the ques tions that con - 

cern us by of fer ing re sponses that are as close 

to the truth as we need them to be. Ei ther way, 

the an swer clearly rec og nizes that our con - 

cerns are con tin gent and that they may change; 

as they do, the aims of the sci ences will vary 

with them. 

I en dorse this an swer, and I’ll try to il lus - 

trate and mo ti vate it with an anal ogy. Con sider 

the prac tice of draw ing maps of var i ous re - 

gions of the world. Maps are ap pro pri ately 

held to stan dards of ac cu racy; there is an an a - 

logue here of the no tion of truth that fig ures in 

the sci en tific case. No body should doubt the 

fact that car tog ra phy made prog ress when 

maps of the globe came to in clude con ti nents 

and is lands that had not pre vi ously been rep re - 

sented, and, in more sub tle ways, when the 

mar gins of bod ies of land were drawn on the 

ba sis of a far wider range of mea sure ments. Yet 

that is quite con sis tent with rec og niz ing that 

maps are con ven tional in many re spects, that 

the mapmaker se lects what fea tures are to be 

rep re sented, that the scheme of pro jec tion will 

be cho sen to bring out those spa tial re la tion - 

ships that are most per ti nent (at cost to oth ers), 

and that lines that mark geo graph ical bound - 

aries will be drawn in dif fer ent places de pend - 

ing on the uses to which the map is to be put. 

The ob jec tiv ity of maps is rep re sented in the 

fact that the over whelm ing ma jor ity of closed 

curves will not serve as the coast line of a par - 

tic u lar is land; the con ven tion al ity is re flected 

in the fact that there are still sub tle choices 

about what is to count as the coast line. 

In the his tory of mapmaking, hu man so ci et - 

ies, hu man tech nol o gies, and hu man pur poses 


50

have evolved, with the re sult that the maps 

drawn to day are of ten di rected at quite dif fer - 

ent ends than those pur sued by our pre de ces - 

sors. It would be folly to think of the aim of car - 

tog ra phy as that of con struct ing some allen 

com pass ing map—the ideal at las that would 

rep re sent ev ery thing. I take the same point to 

hold of the sci ences gen er ally. We seek rep re - 

sen ta tions of na ture that are ad e quate to our 

pur poses. 

If that is so, then there is an ob vi ous ques - 

tion—what is meant by the first per son plu ral 

here? To speak glibly of “our pur poses” is to 

dis guise an ob vi ous fact, the fact that a very 

large num ber of peo ple have ab so lutely no im - 

pact on the ways in which sci en tific pro jects 

are de fined or pur sued. The ire that is some - 

times di rected against the prac tice of sci ence, 

the con dem na tions that are heard in the “Sci - 

ence Wars,” these are, I think, prod ucts of a 

sense of ex clu sion. Al though the id iom in 

which the pro tests are couched is of ten meta - 

phys i cal or epistemological, con cerned with 

the le git i macy of the no tion of truth or of ob - 

jec tiv ity, the un der ly ing con cerns are moral, 

so cial and po lit i cal. Ten den tious and cloudy 

philo soph i cal cri tiques en ter only be cause 

those who pro test do not see how to for mu late 

their wor ries about val ues in the proper 

terms—and that is pre cisely the re sult of the 

rigid in sis tence on sci ence as a value-free 

zone. Once we are clear, how ever, that “the 

search for truth” can only be short hand for a 

com mit ment to seek ing those kinds of truths 

that mat ter to a group of peo ple liv ing in a par - 

tic u lar his tor i cal and so cial con text, then it’s 

ob vi ous how to for mu late the rel e vant moral, 

so cial, and po lit i cal protest. 

The form of the com plaint is “We are left 

out.” That might oc cur in one of two dif fer ent 

ways. Per haps there are sim ply sins of omis - 

sion: the con duct of sci en tific re search leaves 

out of ac count the in ter ests of some group of 

peo ple. Or there may be sins of com mis sion: 

the prac tice of re search gen er ates, in the ex ist - 

ing so cial and po lit i cal con text, re sults that are 

det ri men tal to the in ter ests of a group of peo - 

ple. Once we rec og nize the de pend ence of the 

aims of sci ence on ad ap ta tion to “our” in ter ests 

and pur poses, com plaints that some peo ple are 

left out or are ad versely af fected ought to be 

taken se ri ously. 

That does not mean, though, that the com - 

plaints have to be judged valid. For it might 

turn out that, in a par tic u lar con text, the best 

we could do for hu man well-be ing, un der stood 

col lec tively, would slight the in ter ests of some 

group. The sit u a tion is ev i dent in cases of some 

forms of dis ease re search; there are rare ge - 

netic con di tions that pro duce dread ful dis rup - 

tions of de vel op ment, for which the avail able 

sci en tific in for ma tion strongly in di cates that 

there is lit tle pros pect of find ing a way to res - 

cue the vic tims; in a world of lim ited re - 

sources, it would be folly to in vest ef fort in try - 

ing to pro vide some al ter na tive su pe rior to 

pal lia tive care. It is even pos si ble that we might 

tol er ate re search that had an ad verse ef fect on 

the in ter ests of some group of peo ple, if (say) 

the ef fect came about be cause the pro vi sion of 

ben e fits to oth ers, hith erto much less for tu nate, 

stripped away pro tec tion from com pe ti tion 

that had pre vi ously been en joyed. 

The proper for mu la tion of these com plaints 

should thus serve as the oc ca sion for a gen u ine 

de bate about the ex tent to which some in di vid - 

u als or groups are le git i mately ex cluded. The 

de bate will surely prove in con clu sive un less 

there is agree ment about the proper aims of the 

sci ences. We need to probe that easy first-per - 

son plu ral, and to de cide what is meant by sug - 

gest ing that our sci en tific re search aims to dis - 

cover those truths that are most rel e vant to us, 

here and now. The prob lem is that of how to 

un der stand the sci ences as aim ing at some kind 

of col lec tive good. 

At this point, de fend ers of au ton omy are 

likely to point out that the sci en tific com mu - 

nity has a clearer vi sion of this col lec tive good 

and of how it might be at tained. There is an im - 

por tant in sight here, but, as I’ll try to ar gue, it 

should not in spire us ei ther to re vive the orig i - 

nal dec la ra tion of in de pend ence or to fash ion a 

new one. The im por tant in sight is to rec og nize 

the gap be tween peo ple’s wishes and their gen - 

u ine in ter ests. It’s a com mon place that all of us 

are some times in clined to want and to try to 

ob tain out comes that would, in some sense, be 

bad for us, and, al though this is some times the 

re sult of weak ness of the will, it is of ten a mat - 

ter of our ig no rance. Con fronted with a pro - 

posal that sci en tific re search should be di - 

rected to ward the in ter ests of the larger pub lic, 

a cham pion of au ton omy may pro pose that that 

larger pub lic is in a poor po si tion to make judg - 

ments about its own in ter ests, pre cisely be - 

cause its ig no rance of the pos si bil i ties opened 

up by lines of re search leads it to over look the 

mer its of the pro jects that wise sci en tists 

(rightly) want to pur sue. Were the mob to have 


51

its way, many ven tures that bring the most im - 

por tant ben e fits to later gen er a tions would n’t 

get off the ground. Far better, then, to leave the 

de ci sions in the hands of the wise sci en tists 

and not to for feit sci en tific au ton omy. 

Let’s start by ac knowl edg ing what is cor - 

rect about this line of thought. I don’t doubt 

that sci en tists know some things that out sid ers 

don’t, and that they are thereby some times in a 

po si tion to see con se quences of pro posed pro - 

jects that those out sid ers would over look. 

There’s an asym me try in knowl edge and ex - 

per tise here. But that asym me try should n’t be 

over blown, for it would be quite wrong for sci - 

en tists to think that they know all the things 

that are per ti nent to for mu lat ing a wise pol icy 

for re search. In the first place, as any one who 

has ever heard dif fer ent groups of sci en tists de - 

bat ing the prom ise of their own spe cial fields 

will know, even if the sci en tific view is more 

far-sighted than that of out sid ers, it is typ i cally 

my o pic, and each spe cial ist will tend to view 

the sci en tific uni verse in the style of Saul 

Steinberg’s fa mous Manhattan car toon. Sec - 

ond, and more im por tantly, even if the sci en - 

tific com mu nity col lec tively has a bal anced 

view of re search pos si bil i ties, this is only one 

di men sion of the prob lem. It would be in suf - 

fer ably ar ro gant to sup pose that some group of 

spe cial ists has com plete in sight into hu man 

needs, in clud ing those of peo ple in quite dif - 

fer ent sit u a tions from the lucky few. The 

claims of de moc racy and of ex per tise should 

be bal anced, with in di vid u als of all kinds be - 

ing the best judges of their needs and ex perts 

us ing their knowl edge to help meet those 

needs. 

The de fender of sci en tific au ton omy at tacks 

the very sim plest ver sion of a pro posal to em - 

body a wide va ri ety of in ter ests in the spec i fi - 

ca tion of the aims of the sci ences. That ver - 

sion, “vul gar de moc racy” to give it a name, is 

the po lar op po site of the au tono mist’s dec la ra - 

tion of in de pend ence. But the poles don’t ex - 

haust the range of our op tions. We can bring 

the is sues into clearer fo cus by pro ceed ing 

more slowly. 

Com plaints about ex clu sion, I sug gested, 

de serve to be heard. To as sess them we have to 

for mu late some ideal of the col lec tive good at 

which the sci ences aim. The in sight of the au - 

tono mist’s re ac tion is that that ideal should not 

be iden ti fied with the sat is fac tion of the raw 

wishes and pref er ences of as many peo ple as 

pos si ble. Thought ful crit ics of prac tices of ex - 

clu sion in the sci ences ought to agree, for they 

should rec og nize that peo ple who don’t have a 

clear view of the sci en tific pos si bil i ties may 

not be able to for mu late their real in ter ests. 

They may ad mit that they need the help of the 

sci en tific com mu nity in dis cov er ing what 

would be best for them, while de ny ing that de - 

ci sions should sim ply be made for them. They 

may give their ad mis sion more pre cise form by 

out lin ing an ideal for the sci ences. 

At any given time, the sci ences ought to 

seek the truths that mat ter at that time. The 

truths that mat ters at that time are those that 

cor rectly an swer the ques tions that mat ter to 

the peo ple who ex ist at that time. The ques - 

tions that mat ter to those peo ple are the ques - 

tions that they would iden tify as worth pur su - 

ing at the end of an ideal de lib er a tion in which 

each of them be came aware of the po ten tials of 

var i ous lines of in quiry, as they are viewed by 

the sci en tific com mu nity, in which each re for - 

mu lated his or her needs and pref er ences in 

light of this un der stand ing of the range of pos - 

si bil i ties, in which each ex pressed those re for - 

mu lated needs and be came aware of the re for - 

mu lated needs of oth ers, and in which each 

was moved by the de sire to at tain a co op er a tive 

so lu tion that would be per ceived as fair by all. 

If a prac tice of sci en tific re search ac tu ally pur - 

sues the truths that mat ter in this sense, I’ll say 

that it is well-or dered. 

Let me im me di ately em pha size, with all the 

re sources of cap i tals, ital ics, bold, and (if pos - 

si ble) technicolor, that this is an IDEAL and 

not a pro posal about the gov er nance of sci - 

ence. To sug gest that re search should be con - 

ducted by first con ven ing rep re sen ta tives of 

the hu man pop u la tion, en gag ing in elab o rate 

tu tor ing, and then elic it ing a mu tu ally-con - 

cerned ex change of as pi ra tions would plainly 

be ab surd. No doubt, we ought to be in ter ested 

in how this ideal might be im ple mented, but 

that is a dis tinct ques tion. Re call the pre dic a - 

ment to which this ideal is in tended to re spond: 

if we are to judge the le git i macy of a com plaint 

about ex clu sion, we shall need some stan dard 

for the proper con duct of sci en tific re search; 

the ideal of well-or dered sci ence is in tended to 

serve as that stan dard. More over, if that stan - 

dard (or some thing like it) is adopted, we can 

rec og nize im por tant ways in which the pres ent 

gov er nance of sci ence di verges from it: most 

no ta bly in the ex clu sion of the view points of 

many groups of peo ple and in the dom i nant 

role of af flu ent en tre pre neurs. 


52

At this point, two ques tions arise: First, is 

this the right stan dard? Sec ond, as sum ing that 

it is, how should the prac tice of the sci ences be 

mod i fied to bring us closer to that stan dard? 

With re spect to both ques tions, I en vis age con - 

cerns from those ded i cated to the au ton omy of 

the sci ences. 

We can sharpen dis cus sion of the first is sue 

by con sid er ing what al ter na tive to the stan dard 

of well-or dered sci ence the cham pion of au - 

ton omy might pre fer. The most ob vi ous ri val is 

a spec i fi ca tion of the ques tions that mat ter that 

does n’t men tion the needs and pref er ences of 

peo ple out side the sci en tific com mu nity. 

There are two al ter na tives—to avoid re flec tion 

on hu man pref er ences al to gether or to for mu - 

late the ideal in terms of the pref er ences of sci - 

en tists. The bur den of some of my ear lier ar gu - 

ments was that the idea of an agenda that 

na ture sets for sci ence is a myth, that one can’t 

hope to spec ify the ques tions that mat ter with - 

out ref er ence to peo ple to whom they mat ter. 

So the first ap proach seems to me to be hope - 

less, and we are left with the sec ond. 

The dec la ra tion of in de pend ence re duces, 

then, to the idea that the proper prac tice of the 

sci ences is to pur sue those truths that sci en tists 

col lec tively iden tify as most im por tant, given 

their pooled un der stand ing of past achieve - 

ments and fu ture prom ises. At ear lier stage in 

his tory, that might have been a plau si ble 

ideal—when King Charles laughed at the 

thought that the mem bers of the new Royal So - 

ci ety were weigh ing the air, nei ther he, nor 

any one else, had rea son to be lieve that the re - 

searches of the learned vir tu osi would be 

broadly con se quen tial. What ever our at ti tude 

to what goes on in lab o ra to ries, we no lon ger 

laugh. We know that what sci en tists work on— 

and what they don’t work on—mat ters to ev - 

ery one. Hence the pro posal that this is an ideal 

for the prac tice of the sci ences, and a su pe rior 

ideal to that of well-or dered sci ence, rests on 

the sug ges tion that only the pref er ences and 

needs of some peo ple, the sci en tists them - 

selves, are worth tak ing se ri ously—a chill ing 

ver sion of elit ism that re calls those strands in 

an cient so cial and po lit i cal thought we find 

most puz zling and re pug nant. 

The cham pion of au ton omy will surely re - 

spond that this form of elit ism is not what is 

meant by the dec la ra tion of in de pend ence, that 

of course the needs of out sid ers mat ter, but that 

au ton omy is im por tant be cause the sci en tific 

com mu nity is the best judge of how sci en tific 

re search can meet those needs. I agree that this 

in ter pre ta tion of the dec la ra tion yields a more 

plau si ble po si tion, but it is im por tant to rec og - 

nize that it tac itly con cedes that the ideal at 

which re search aims is not to be char ac ter ized 

in any au ton o mous fash ion. In ef fect, the au - 

tono mist ac cepts the view that the ideal of 

well-or dered sci ence—or some thing like it, 

some thing that in te grates the pref er ences of 

out sid ers with the in formed judg ments of 

mem bers of the sci en tific com mu nity—is 

quite ap pro pri ate, but that the best way to work 

to ward this ideal is to rely on the judg ments of 

the sci en tific com mu nity. I’ll pres ent this ver - 

sion of the dec la ra tion of in de pend ence ex plic - 

itly: We can best ap prox i mate the ideal of wellor 

dered sci ence by ar rang ing for the course of 

sci en tific in quiry to be de ter mined by the au - 

ton o mous judg ments of mem bers of the sci en - 

tific com mu nity. 

I have no doubt that, if the only al ter na tive 

were vul gar de moc racy, we would be well-ad - 

vised to ac cept the dec la ra tion, so un der stood. 

But there are many imag in able ways in which 

the for mu la tion of the re search agenda could 

re spond to the per spec tives of a broad range of 

peo ple whose views had been in formed by the 

ex perts’ un der stand ing of ac com plish ments 

and po ten tial. To con clude that any of these 

imag in able ri vals will prove in fe rior to the 

coun sel of the sci en tific guard ians is to per - 

form a breath tak ing in fer ence. More bluntly, it 

is to leap dog mat i cally to a com fort able con - 

clu sion. We have ab so lutely no ba sis for adopt - 

ing the dec la ra tion of in de pend ence in the cur - 

rent form, and, if we’re se ri ous about the ideal 

of well-or dered sci ence, a more so ber re ac tion 

would be to ac knowl edge our ig no rance about 

how better to achieve it and to ex plore some 

pos si bil i ties. 

Once again, I en vis age an au tono mist’s pro - 

test. “We al ready know,” he sug gests, “that di - 

rected sci en tific re search goes badly; that it has 

been won der fully fruit ful in the past for bril - 

liant sci en tists to ex plore their hunches, that 

un an tic i pated ben e fits come from in qui ries 

into ap par ently im prac ti cal ques tions, and that 

the course of sci ence is quite un pre dict able.” 

The first point to note is the arm chair—or ex 

cathedra—qual ity of these ar gu ments. Our au - 

tono mist has a few bits of an ec dotal ev i dence, 

he has read a book on Lysenkoism, a bi og ra phy 

of Ein stein, and so forth. In fact, we don’t 

know very much about the ways in which sci - 

en tific re search re sponds to di rec tion to ward 


53

par tic u lar ques tions, and the con fi dence of au - 

tono mists typ i cally rests on their mak ing the 

sorts of judg ments that are de nounced in any 

ba sic course on meth od ol ogy—sketchy his to - 

ries are as sem bled with out any at ten tion to 

sam ple or to the ex is tence of proper com par i - 

sons. Al though the lit er a ture in the so ci ol ogy 

of sci en tific knowl edge of ten re veals in ter est - 

ing things, it will not de liver a sta tis ti cal ba sis 

from which we can pro ject the likely ef fects of 

at tempts to plan dif fer ent kinds of re search. 

But a more fun da men tal point to no tice is that, 

in so far as gen u ine knowl edge about so cial di - 

rec tion of in quiry, suc cess of bril liant in di vid - 

u als, or fruits of re search into pure top ics can 

be ac quired, that knowl edge could and should 

be em ployed to fur ther the dem o cratic pro cess 

of de ci sion. It is em i nently com pat i ble with in - 

te grat ing the views of a broader pub lic into de - 

ci sions about sci en tific re search to de mand 

that the de lib er a tions bear in mind the track re - 

cord of var i ous so cial sys tems of or ga niz ing 

inquiry. 

The last part of the re ply I have put in the au - 

tono mist’s mouth de mands a slightly dif fer ent 

re sponse. What ex actly fol lows from the fact 

that we can not fore see the course of sci ence? 

That no type of de ci sion we can now make 

about ques tions that mat ter is pref er a ble to any 

other? If so, that would un der mine the au tono - 

mist’s con fi dence that the wise judg ment of 

sci en tists is su pe rior; we might just as well toss 

coins, or read tea leaves. Of course, to draw out 

that ex treme im pli ca tion re minds us that, al - 

though we can’t make fine-grained pre dic tions 

about what re search will bring, we aren’t com - 

pletely clue less ei ther. We know, for ex am ple, 

that needs are more likely to be met if more ef - 

fort is ex pended in cer tain lines of re search 

rather than in oth ers; no body thinks that step - 

ping up re search into mech a nisms of pro tein 

syn the sis is likely to help solve the prob lem of 

global warm ing—it might but the prob a bil ity 

is n’t high. The sit u a tion we face with re spect to 

sci ence is much like that we en coun ter, in di - 

vid u ally and col lec tively, in many ar eas of life. 

We can only make the rough est of judg ments, 

but we try to weigh the goals we have, think 

about avail able strat e gies in light of those 

rough judg ments, and forge ahead. Work ing in 

con cert, the sci en tific com mu nity and the 

broader pub lic ought to be able to achieve 

some thing sim i lar. 

I con clude that we ought not to ac cept the 

dec la ra tion of in de pend ence in any of its ver - 

sions. As it bears on the ideal for sci en tific re - 

search, it should be re jected in fa vor of the 

stan dard of well-or dered sci ence (or some - 

thing sim i lar). As it bears on strat e gies for 

work ing to ward that stan dard, we should ap - 

pre ci ate that we have no rea sons to ac cept it, 

and that we would be far better served by an ex - 

plo ra tion of pos si ble ways of or ga niz ing and 

di rect ing in quiry. 

I am aware, how ever, that the ar gu ment I’ve 

of fered is ab stract, and I’ll close with a spe cific 

in stance, de signed to bring out a tragic con se - 

quence of the in sis tence on the au ton omy of 

the sci ences. Dur ing the time spent read ing 

this es say, nearly 700 peo ple will have died 

from in fec tious dis eases that are al most en - 

tirely con fined to or fa tal in those ar eas of the 

world that do not en gage in large amounts of 

sci en tific re search. The to tal fig ures for death 

from dis ease in any given year are about 40 

mil lion, and ma laria, tu ber cu lo sis, re spi ra tory 

in fec tions, and diarrheal dis eases ac count for 

about a quar ter of those. If re search on a dis - 

ease obeyed a “fair share” prin ci ple—in which 

the amount of fund ing as signed was in pro por - 

tion to its share of the to tal dis ease bur den— 

then the dis eases I have men tioned would be 

given be tween twenty and one hun dred times 

as much at ten tion than they cur rently get. (A 

pass ing note: it does n’t make much dif fer ence 

whether the fair share is com puted by look ing 

at the pro por tion of deaths or by some more in - 

clu sive mea sure of suf fer ing, such as DALYs 

[dis abil ity ad justed life years]; when eco - 

nomic con se quences are taken into ac count, 

the skew ing of re search re sources away from 

non-af flu ent-world dis eases is even more pro - 

nounced.) Now there are many oc ca sions on 

which it’s quite rea son able to de part from the 

fair share prin ci ple. Some prob lems may be 

judged, cor rectly, to hold out the prom ise of 

more ef fi cient, quicker, more ex ten sive so lu - 

tions (and so forth), and it might there fore be 

rea son able to in vest more in them than the fair 

share prin ci ple would rec om mend. But those 

kinds of de vi a tions don’t ap ply in the cases un - 

der con sid er ation. One very ob vi ous con se - 

quence of our in creas ing knowl edge of mo lec - 

u lar ge net ics is the abil ity to se quence, 

quickly, the genomes of patho gens, and to 

com bine that knowl edge with bi o log i cal un - 

der stand ing of im mune re sponses to coat pro - 

teins, known char ac ter is tics of hosts and lifecy 

cles, and de tails of eco log i cal con di tions to 

de vise vac cines or meth ods of dis rupt ing the 


54

trans mis sion of the dis ease. In fact, I’m 

tempted to say that there are as many op tions 

for these forms of re search as for the dis eases, 

the af flu ent-world dis eases, that at tract the 

lion’s share of our re search re sources (Flory 

and Kitcher, 2004). 

I claim that this rep re sents a clear ex am ple 

of a de par ture from well-or dered sci ence. The 

cel e brated 10/90 gap (in which 90 per cent of 

the world’s bio med i cal re search re sources are 

di rected to ward the prob lems ex pe ri enced by 

the most af flu ent 10 per cent of the pop u la tion) 

is not what an ideal dis cus sion of in formed 

deliberators, ded i cated to find ing a dis tri bu - 

tion that could broadly be ac cepted as fair, 

would en dorse. So why are things as they are? 

In part be cause of the in sis tence on the au ton - 

omy of the sci ences. In part, also, be cause 

when so cial pres sures im pinge, they do so in 

an un even fash ion, fa vor ing the in ter ests of af - 

Flory, James, and Philip Kitcher. (2004) “Global Health 

and the Sci en tific Re search Agenda,” Phi los o phy and 

Pub lic Af fairs 32: 36–65. 

REFERENCES 

flu ent so ci et ies and of af flu ent groups within 

them. More over, in so far as the au ton omy of 

the sci ences is cur rently threat ened by so cial 

ar range ments, the pres sures are en tirely in the 

wrong di rec tion. In stead of an open ing of in - 

quiry to the in formed pref er ences of a broader 

pop u la tion, mar ket forces in creas ingly have an 

im pact on the kinds of sci ence that are pur - 

sued. Be hind those mar ket forces we find an 

ex traor di narily un even dis tri bu tion of re - 

sources, and pref er ences that are largely un in - 

formed by the gen u ine pos si bil i ties. 

Sci ence mat ters to all of us, and our con tin - 

ued ex plo ra tions should re flect that fact. In 

con se quence, we need to go be yond dec la ra - 

tions of in de pend ence and to re sist the im mer - 

sion of in quiry into the cur rent cap i tal ist mar - 

ket place. The idea of the au ton omy of the 

sci ences is an un for tu nate hang-up from our 

past. 


55

FROM FRON TIER TO TER ROR ISM 

TOWARD AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT 

OF SCIENCE EDUCATION POLICY MAKING 

Juan Lucena 

I’m proud of you. We are de pend ing on you 

to de velop the tools we need to lift the dark 

threat of ter ror ism for our na tion—and for 

that mat ter, the world. All of us here to day, 

whether we’re sci en tists or en gi neers or 

elected of fi cials, share a great call ing. It’s an 

honor to par tic i pate in a no ble cause that’s 

larger than our selves. 

Pres i dent George W. Bush 

“Anti-Ter ror ism Tech nol ogy Key to Home land Se cu - 

rity,” speech de liv ered to sci en tists and en gi neers at the 

Argonne Na tional Lab o ra tory on July 2002 

Pres i dent Bush’s call for sci en tists and en - 

gi neers to save the na tion from ter ror ism was 

not the only one, nor even the first. Just four 

months af ter Sep tem ber 11, 2001, Rita 

Colwell, Di rec tor of the Na tional Sci ence 

Foun da tion (NSF), de liv ered a speech en ti tled 

“Sci ence as Pa tri o tism” at the an nual meet ing 

of the Uni ver si ties Re search As so ci a tion. In 

her words, 

Ev ery dis cus sion, whether it is about air line 

safety, emerg ing dis eases, fail ure of com mu ni - 

ca tion links, bioterrorism di rected at our food 

and drink ing wa ter, as sess ment of dam aged in - 

fra struc ture, the mind/body re sponse trauma, or 

a myr iad of other con cerns, de pends on our sci - 

en tific and tech ni cal knowl edge. . . . If the sci - 

ence com mu nity can be hands-on to in spire 

young peo ple to a fu ture in sci ence, we would 

be per form ing one of the most en dur ing acts of 

pa tri o tism for the na tion. (Colwell, 2002) 

Shortly af ter Colwell, the Na tional Re - 

search Coun cil (NRC) Com mit tee on Sci ence 

and Tech nol ogy for Coun ter ing Ter ror ism is - 

sued Mak ing the Na tion Safer: The Role of Sci - 

ence and Tech nol ogy in Coun ter ing Ter ror ism, 

ar gu ing that 

Amer ica’s his tor i cal strength in sci ence and en - 

gi neer ing is per haps its most crit i cal as set in 

coun ter ing ter ror ism with out de grad ing our 

qual ity of life. . . . The na tion’s abil ity to per - 

form the needed short- and long-term re search 

and de vel op ment rests fun da men tally on a 

strong sci en tific and en gi neer ing workforce. 

Here there is cause for con cern, as the num ber 

of Amer i can stu dents in ter ested in sci ence and 

en gi neer ing ca reers is de clin ing. (Com mit tee 

on Sci ence and Tech nol ogy for Coun ter ing Ter - 

ror ism, 2002, 23) 

Al most im me di ately pro gram man ag ers at the 

NSF Di rec tor ate for Math e mat i cal and Phys i - 

cal Sci ences (MPS) is sued a so lic i ta tion ti tled 

Ap proaches to Com bat Ter ror ism (ACT): Op - 

por tu ni ties in Ba sic Re search in the Math e - 

mat i cal and Phys i cal Sci ences with the Po ten - 

tial to Con trib ute to Na tional Se cu rity, with an 

ex pected ini tial fund ing of $3.5 mil lion. By 

June 2003, NSF had funded $20 mil lion worth 

of ex plor atory re search and ed u ca tion pro - 

grams deal ing with ter ror ism. 

His tory and The ory 

The im age of the United States un der the 

threat of ter ror ism has al lowed the Pres i dent, 

the NSF Di rec tor, and oth ers to is sue calls for 

sci en tists and en gi neers to save the na tion. Sci - 

en tists and en gi neers have re sponded by cre at - 

ing pro grams to se cure fed eral funds for ed u - 

ca tion and re search, with many col leges and 

uni ver si ties de vel op ing ac tiv i ties to train stu - 

dents for jobs in home land de fense (Barlett, 

2003). Stu dents in turn have en rolled in the rel - 

e vant sci ence and en gi neer ing courses. This 

en tire pro cess, from the emer gence of im ages 

of the na tion un der threat, to the cre ation of a 

dis course about sav ing the na tion with sci ence 

and tech nol ogy and the de vel op ment of fed er - 

ally-funded pro grams to ed u cate sci en tists and 

en gi neers, con sti tutes policymaking to cre ate 

sci en tists and en gi neers. 

But this pro cess and its ide ol ogy, that sci - 

ence ed u ca tion is nec es sary to na tional 

strength, are not new. All that has changed in 

re cent rhet o ric is the im age of the na tion un der 

ter ror ist threat, the par tic u lar ac tors is su ing the 


56

calls, the con tent of their dis course, and the 

spe cific char ac ter is tics de sired in sci en tists 

and en gi neers. The policymaking pro cess— 

from the emer gence of an im age and its as so ci - 

ated dis course to the strug gle of ac tors for bud - 

get al lo ca tions and the cre ation of pro grams— 

has re mained strik ingly con sis tent for at least 

the last half cen tury. In deed, the ide ol ogy has 

roots in the jus ti fi ca tion of mod ern sci ence as a 

strug gle against alien forces that can be traced 

back to such early mod ern fig ures as Fran cis 

Ba con and René Des cartes. 

Since the end of World War II, United States 

sci en tists and en gi neers have re peat edly been 

called to save the coun try from an ex ter nal 

threat. In the 1960s the calls, pro grams, and 

mon ies were mo bi lized for the cre ation of a 

cadre of elite sci en tists to save the na tion from 

the threat of com mu nism, es pe cially af ter the 

USSR launched Sput nik in 1957. In the 1970s 

the calls were for sci en tists and en gi neers who 

could solve en vi ron men tal prob lems. In the 

1980s, large num bers of en gi neers were asked 

to ad dress com pet i tive eco nomic chal lenges 

from Ja pan. Since the early 1990s sci en tists 

and en gi neers have been en cour aged to re - 

search and solve prob lems re lated to an in - 

creas ingly com pet i tive global econ omy. Now 

pa tri otic sci en tists and en gi neers are be ing 

asked to de velop the knowl edge and in fra - 

struc ture to keep Amer ica safe from ter ror ism. 

Harvey Averch (1985) has noted that 

policymakers re sort to a di verse range of rhe - 

tor i cal strat e gies to jus tify fed er ally-funded 

pro grams. They ap pro pri ate met a phors, in for - 

ma tion, mod els, wit nesses, co ali tion build ing, 

and more, in or der to se cure fed eral funds. Pol - 

icy mak ing is not just about money, but also 

about de fin ing prob lems in ways that can only 

be un der stood by plac ing the rel e vant rhe tor i - 

cal strat e gies in their his tor i cal and cul tural 

con texts. It is his tory that re veals how di verse 

strat e gies, in or der to gain le git i macy, have re - 

peat edly ap pealed to some im age of the na tion 

un der threat. 

But his tory alone is not enough. To un der - 

stand this his tory re quires the ory: cul tural the - 

ory to ex plain how im ages of the na tion chal - 

lenge the ac tors in volved in policymaking; a 

the ory of governmentality to il lu mi nate the 

mak ing of sci en tists and en gi neers as a prob - 

lem for the na tion-state; dis course anal y sis to 

ex plore why cer tain things can be said, how 

they are said, and who is au tho rized to say 

them; and fi nally a the ory of so cial con struc - 

tion to ex plore the gen eral pro cesses through 

which sci en tific and en gi neer ing re ports, mod - 

els, sta tis tics, and more are de vel oped. In most 

cases de ploy ments of these di verse the o ret i cal 

frame works take place sep a rately or in iso la - 

tion from each other in cul ture stud ies, po lit i - 

cal the ory, rhe tor i cal stud ies, and the so cial 

sci ences. Here I sketch a more in ter dis ci plin - 

ary ef fort in or der to point to ward a broad as - 

sess ment of the re cent ap peal to a na tion un der 

ter ror ist threat, one that takes on par tic u lar sa - 

lience in re la tion to a more long-stand ing ap - 

peal to sci ence as an ex ten sion of the Amer i can 

frontier. 

A Cul tural Im age of the Na tion 

In light of the in creased mo bil ity of peo - 

ples, ideas, cus toms, and be liefs cul ture the o - 

rists have ques tioned the ad e quacy of tra di - 

tional mod els of cul ture that em pha size how 

mem bers of a bounded com mu nity share a 

com mon set of val ues, be liefs, norms, and be - 

hav iors. George Marcus (1999) calls for a new 

way to talk about the re la tion ship be tween cul - 

ture and in di vid u als (Marcus, 1999), and Gary 

Downey(1998 and 1999) has pro posed a con - 

cept of cul ture in which in di vid u als are chal - 

lenged by im ages that cre ate ex pec ta tions 

about how they are sup posed to act or be have. 

Dom i nant im ages cre ate ex pec ta tions about 

how in di vid u als in a par tic u lar lo ca tion are 

sup posed to act or be have. In this new con cept 

of cul ture, the im age re mains the same over a 

pe riod of time, while in di vid ual or group re ac - 

tions to the im age dif fer. When chal lenged by 

the same im age, in di vid u als or groups re sist, 

ac com mo date, ac cept, or ex pe ri ence am bi gu - 

ity in dif fer ent ways. 

Con sider the sit u a tion post Sep tem ber 11, 

2001: a dom i nant im age emerged of the United 

States threat ened by ir ra tio nal evil ter ror ists. 

All Amer i cans are now chal lenged by this im - 

age. Some re sponded by en list ing in the armed 

forces, oth ers en rolled in ac a demic pro grams 

deal ing with in ter na tional or home land se cu - 

rity. Still oth ers en gaged in pa tri otic dis plays, 

while some crit i cized or re sisted gov ern men tal 

ac tions. Thus al though in di vid ual ex pe ri ences 

dif fer, dif fer ences are uni fied in that to which 

they re spond. 

Pres i dent Bush and NSF Di rec tor Rita 

Colwell re acted sim i larly to the new im age by 

call ing sci en tists and en gi neers to cre ate more 

tech nol ogy use ful to the na tion. Other con tri - 

SCIENCE EDUCATION POLICY MAKING 

57

u tors to the policymaking pro cess en rolled 

them selves in this re ac tion, as did the sci en tists 

and en gi neers in the NRC and NSF ad vi sory 

com mit tees. Still oth ers have re sisted such a 

re sponse and ar gued in stead that en list ing sci - 

en tists and en gi neers in the war against ter ror - 

ism could be coun ter-pro duc tive to sci en tific 

cre ativ ity and tech no log i cal in no va tion. 

Scientists, Engineers, and the Nation State 

Ac cord ing to Michel Foucault, the cen tral 

prob lem of gov er nance since the nine teenth 

cen tury has been na tion-state pop u la tion man - 

age ment. This prob lem led gov ern ments to im - 

ple ment tech niques for con fig ur ing in di vid u - 

als into cat e go ries fa cil i tat ing con trol. For 

Foucault, these tech niques “were never more 

im por tant or more val o rized than at the mo - 

ment when it be came im por tant to man age a 

pop u la tion: the man ag ing of a pop u la tion not 

only con cerns the col lec tive mass of phe nom - 

ena, the level of its ag gre gate ef fects, it also im - 

plies the man age ment of pop u la tion in its 

depths and de tails” (Foucault, 1991b, 102). 

Fol low ers of Foucault ar gue that these “tech - 

nol o gies of gov ern ment” have be come mech a - 

nisms for the “objectification of in di vid u als 

through which au thor i ties of var i ous sorts have 

sought to shape, nor mal ize and 

instrumentalize the con duct, thought, de ci - 

sions and as pi ra tions of oth ers in or der to 

achieve the ob jec tives they con sider de sir able” 

(Miller and Rose, 1993, 82). Foucault him self 

re ferred to the co or di nated en sem ble of these 

tech nol o gies of gov ern ment as 

“governmentality.” 

The study of governmentality has be come a 

par tic u lar ap proach “marked by a de sire to an - 

a lyze con tem po rary po lit i cal ra tio nal i ties as 

tech ni cal em bodi ments of men tal i ties for the 

gov ern ment of con duct” (Miller and Rose, 

1993, 76). Such anal y ses fo cus on new ways to 

ex plain the ex er cise of po lit i cal power in ad - 

vanced lib eral de moc ra cies by means of tech - 

nol o gies of gov ern ment that even tu ally lead to 

the “shap ing of the pri vate self.” Ul ti mately, 

these tech nol o gies of gov ern ment are in tended 

to bring so cial and eco nomic or der into con - 

tem po rary gov ern ment by serv ing both ends of 

a spec trum of po lit i cal ac tiv ity: po lit i cal econ - 

omy and so cial se cu rity (Gordon, 1991). 

With re gard to sci ence and tech nol ogy, po - 

lit i cal econ omy is served through the ef fi cient 

al lo ca tion of pop u la tion in the dif fer ent sec tors 

of the econ omy, as by count ing, iden ti fy ing, 

and pre dict ing the num ber of en gi neers needed 

in key in dus tries or sci en tists in ar eas of stra te - 

gic im por tance for na tional se cu rity. State se - 

cu rity, in its turn, is served through the cre ation 

of self-reg u lated cit i zens who will in te grate 

them selves into the sci en tific and en gi neer ing 

workforce. 

Policymaking as Dis course 

Sit u at ing power and knowl edge that un der - 

lie the de ploy ment of tech nol o gies of gov ern - 

ment re quires an at ten tion to the lan guage of 

sup ply and de mand workforce mod els, sup - 

ply-side mod els such as the pipe line, and 

more. As Pe ter Miller and Nikolas Rose (1993) 

have ar gued, governmentality “has a dis cur - 

sive char ac ter: to an a lyze the con cep tu al iza - 

tions, ex pla na tions and cal cu la tions that in - 

habit the gov ern men tal field re quires an 

at ten tion to lan guage” (78–79). Thus it is nec - 

es sary to ap pre ci ate the lan guage of gov ern - 

ment of fi cials, rep re sen ta tives of in dus try, ad - 

vo cates of underrepresented groups in sci ence 

and en gi neer ing, and oth ers as they strug gle to 

de fine na tional prob lems and their so lu tions. 

As Miller and Rose fur ther sug gest, a par - 

tic u lar pol icy dis course also takes place in a 

larger field through which it is le git i mated. As 

sci ence pol icy lan guage res o nates with the im - 

age of a na tion un der threat, it ac quires a le git i - 

macy that al lows policymakers to de fine prob - 

lems and so lu tions in terms of sci en tists and 

en gi neers. Miller and Rose do not pro vide 

clear in di ca tions of where the rel e vant dis - 

course is lo cated or how to ac cess it. But a clue 

may be taken from Foucault’s writ ings on pol i - 

tics and the study of dis course, in which he 

points to ward “ar chae ol ogy” as a method and 

the “ar chive” as the site in which it is ap plied. 

In study ing dis course, he writes, that he is 

not do ing ex e ge sis, but an ar chae ol ogy, that is to 

say, . . . the de scrip tion of an ar chive. By this 

word, I do not mean the mass of texts gath ered 

to gether at a given pe riod [but] the set of rules 

which at a given pe riod and for a given so ci ety 

de fine . . . the lim its and forms of the sayable. 

(Foucault, [1968]1991), 58) 

We can thus ex pect the lan guage of pol icy 

mak ing to be lo cated in the ar chive of of fi cial 

state ments, ad hoc re ports, and writ ten against 

the back ground of a time-spe cific na tional im - 

age. 


58

In nu mer ous re ports call ing for sci en tists 

and en gi neers to solve many of Amer ica’s 

prob lems, one can eas ily dis cern a par tic u lar 

dis course or set of rules that lend le git i macy to 

ev ery thing NSF ad min is tra tors and 

policymakers say, pro pose, and do with re gard 

to ed u cat ing and train ing sci en tists and en gi - 

neers in the U.S. For ex am ple, in the 1960s we 

find a dis course of “sci en tific ex per tise” to 

deal with the chal lenges posed by an im age of 

the na tion un der threat by So viet sci ence. In 

the 1970s there emerged a new dis course of 

“al ter na tive sci ence and tech nol ogy” to deal 

with the chal lenges of so cial and en vi ron men - 

tal prob lems. In the 1980s, un der the im age of 

Amer ica threat ened by tech no log i cal com pe ti - 

tion, “tech nol ogy for eco nomic com pet i tive - 

ness” emerged as a dis course. In the 1990s, 

“flex i ble technoscience for global com pe ti - 

tion” took cen ter stage. To day we wit ness the 

prom i nence of a dis course of “pa tri otic sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy” to deal with the chal - 

lenges posed a na tion un der the threat of ter ror - 

ism. 

In each case, these dis courses have tended 

to de fine the lim its of the sayable and the pro - 

gram of ap pro pri a tion for ed u cat ing and train - 

ing sci en tists and en gi neers. As much as 

money and pol i tics, im ages and dis course have 

shaped the ac tions of gov ern ment to ed u cate 

sci en tists and en gi neers in par tic u lar ways. 

The Con struc tion of Knowl edge 

about Scientists and Engineers 

Lo cat ing the ex act or i gin or end of a dis - 

course is not that im por tant. What is more im - 

por tant in an a lyz ing dis course, as Foucault ar - 

gues, “is the law of ex is tence of state ments, 

that which ren dered them pos si ble—them and 

none other in their place; the con di tions of 

their sin gu lar emer gence; the cor re la tion with 

other pre vi ous or si mul ta neous events, dis cur - 

sive or oth er wise” (Foucault, 1991a, 59–60). 

Thus it is of ten use ful to an a lyze state ments 

made in the me dia in or der to see how a dis - 

course trav els across dif fer ent ar eas of na tional 

life, from pub lic into of fi cial do mains and vice 

versa. It is es pe cially use ful to note the “law of 

ex is tence” of of fi cial state ments about the 

needs for sci en tists and en gi neers: Who is per - 

mit ted or able to pro nounce these state ments? 

Who is ex cluded al to gether from mak ing state - 

ments? Which con cepts of na tion are ac cepted 

as valid and which are not? 

The o rists fol low ing Foucault have given 

hints as to what might con sti tute a state ment, 

for ex am ple, about pop u la tion man age ment, 

but they do not ex plain how these be come ac - 

cepted as of fi cial knowl edge through which 

the pop u la tion is ac tu ally man aged. As Miller 

and Rose note, 

dis course re quires at ten tion to par tic u lar tech - 

ni cal de vices of writ ing, list ing, num ber ing, and 

com put ing that ren der a realm into a know able, 

cal cu la ble and ad min is tra ble ob ject. “Know - 

ing” an ob ject in such a way is more than a 

purely spec u la tive ac tiv ity: it re quires the in - 

ven tion of pro ce dures of no ta tion, ways of col - 

lect ing and pre sent ing sta tis tics. . . . It is through 

such pro ce dures of in scrip tion that the di verse 

do mains of “governmentality” are made up, 

that ob jects such as the econ omy, the en ter prise, 

the so cial field and the fam ily [in clud ing sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy] are ren dered in a par tic u - 

lar con cep tual form and made ame na ble to in - 

ter ven tion and reg u la tion. (Miller an Rose, 

1993, 79) 

How ever, we should not as sume that state - 

ments con tain ing sim i lar “pro ce dures of in - 

scrip tion” (e.g., ta bles, sta tis tics, graphs, mod - 

els, etc.) have the same level of ac cep tance to 

leg is la tors and policymakers. Ac tu ally, most 

state ments about sci en tists and en gi neers dur - 

ing the 1980s con tained sound sta tis tics, ta - 

bles, and graphs to sup port their ar gu ments. 

But not all were ac cepted by Con gress as of fi - 

cial knowl edge to in flu ence pol icy, even when 

the state ments were aligned with the dom i nant 

im age of the na tion un der the par tic u lar threat 

of that pe riod. The ques tions re gard ing who 

writes such state ments, who en dorses them, 

what kinds of net works of eco nomic and po lit - 

i cal power sup port or at tack them, have sig nif i - 

cant rel e vance to whether or not they be come 

of fi cially ac cepted knowl edge. 

Of fi cial knowl edge about sci en tists and en - 

gi neers emerges from a pro cess of so cial con - 

struc tion in which in di vid u als and groups with 

dif fer ent in ter ests about how sci en tists and en - 

gi neers are to be ed u cated and trained com pete 

and ne go ti ate. Be sides align ment with the 

dom i nant im age of the na tion and the emer gent 

dis course, the suc cess of state ments in be com - 

ing of fi cial knowl edge de pends to a large ex - 

tent on the how well the ac tors mak ing the 

state ments de ploy their al lies and re sources. 

No where is this more ev i dent that in pol icy 


59

mak ing. In ter est groups such as uni ver si ties 

and in dus try, and fed eral agen cies such as 

NSF, de ploy al lies (congresspersons, lob by - 

ists, ex pert wit nesses) and re sources (sta tis tics, 

re ports, vi sual met a phors) to le git i mate claims 

about na tional prob lems and their pos si ble so - 

lu tions. 

But more than the re sult of ne go ti a tion or 

the ap pro pri ate de ploy ment of al lies and re - 

sources, of fi cial knowl edge is the re sult of 

power strug gles for the con trol of per cep tion. 

Groups and in di vid u als strug gle to de fine na - 

tional re al ity, first, by align ing them selves 

with a dom i nant im age of the na tion and ap - 

pro pri at ing its emerg ing dis course, and, sec - 

ond, by de fin ing the prob lems and so lu tions in 

their own terms. Suc cess ful groups and ac tors 

in this pro cess even tu ally shape pro grams, 

bud gets, and the mean ing of how we un der - 

stand the terms “sci en tist” and “en gi neer.” 

As a the ory, so cial constructivism has been 

crit i cized for a num ber of con cep tual lim i ta - 

tions: for its ne glect of the power dif fer ences 

be tween so cial groups or ac tors who are ac tive 

in ne go ti at ing for knowl edge and of those si - 

lent voices who never make it into the pro cess; 

for its ne glect of struc tural re la tion ships be - 

tween classes, races, and gen ders; and, for its 

prob lem atic sug ges tion that knowl edge is no 

more than a prod uct of the pro cess of con struc - 

tion and its clo sure as ac tors ap pear to set tled a 

con tro versy. But such lim i ta tions are not es - 

sen tial to so cial con struc tive anal y sis. With re - 

gard to sci ence pol icy rhet o ric, what so cial 

constructivism points out is that it takes more 

than ad dress ing na tional prob lems in terms of 

a dom i nant threat im age for that rhet o ric to be - 

come in flu en tial. 

The power of state ments to in flu ence pol icy 

also de pends on who makes the state ments, 

and the lim its of what is sayable. Groups and 

ac tors guar an tee their par tic i pa tion in 

policymaking by po si tion ing them selves rel a - 

tive to eco nomic and po lit i cal power. In the 

1960s, for ex am ple, the sci en tific elite ex - 

cluded the work ing class and ra cial mi nor i ties 

from its policymaking ac tiv i ties. And, even af - 

ter a field of par tic i pants has been es tab lished, 

those who par tic i pate are not nec es sar ily 

equal. In the 1980s, when ad vo cates for 

women and mi nor i ties helped cre ate knowl - 

edge about sci en tists and en gi neers, they did 

not oc cupy the same po si tion of power and in - 

flu ence as the Vice Pres i dent of IBM, who later 

be came the chair man of the Na tional Sci ence 

Board. Like wise, for ac tors and groups with 

dif fer ent lev els of power, pol icy out comes 

have dif fer ent im pli ca tions. 

The National Science Foundation 

No where is the re la tion ship be tween im - 

ages of the na tion and policymaking for sci en - 

tists and en gi neers more ev i dent than in the 

pro grams of the Di rec tor ate for Ed u ca tion and 

Hu man Re sources (EHR) at NSF. The NSF has 

emerged as the lead ing voice in the United 

States on sci ence and en gi neer ing is sues, es pe - 

cially in re la tion to ed u ca tion. Given the 

claims about the in creas ing im por tance of sci - 

en tists and en gi neers to ful fill na tional mis - 

sions, un der stand ing the NSF role is it self in - 

creas ingly im por tant for any ef fort to as sess 

sci ence and tech nol ogy pol icy. 

As a source of cer ti fied knowl edge about 

U.S. sci en tists and en gi neers, NSF has gone 

from play ing a re ac tive role to be ing the lead - 

ing voice that informs the gov ern ment about 

pro spec tive needs. Dur ing the 1950s, for the 

first ten years af ter its cre ation as a ve hi cle for 

con tin u ing and de mil i ta riz ing the mas sive 

sup port for sci ence that had de vel oped dur ing 

World War II, NSF rarely made pub lic state - 

ments about the na tional state of sci ence and 

tech nol ogy in gen eral. Even af ter Sput nik in 

1957, head lines de scrib ing a na tional cri sis in 

sci ence and ed u ca tion rarely re lied on knowl - 

edge cre ated at NSF. 

By 2000, how ever, NSF had be come the 

ma jor source of knowl edge about sci en tists 

and en gi neers. “The New Global Workforce: 

High Tech Skills All Over the Map” 

(Engardio, 1994), “Short age of Sci en tists Ap - 

proaches a Cri sis. . .” (Milbank, 1990), and 

“Wanted: 675,000 Fu ture Sci en tists and En gi - 

neers” (Holden, 1989), are just few of the na - 

tional head lines that re lied pri mar ily on 

knowl edge pro duced at NSF about na tional 

needs for sci en tists and en gi neers. In con trast 

with its pre vi ous, more pas sive role, NSF now 

takes the lead in in form ing the na tion about 

how to ed u cate and train its sci en tists and en gi - 

neers to fit spe cific na tional needs. 

In the early 1960s, NSF be gan gath er ing in - 

for ma tion about the num bers and char ac ter is - 

tics of sci en tists and en gi neers through the Sci - 

en tific Man power Pro gram and its two 

el e ments, Man power Stud ies and the Na tional 

Reg is ter. Even tu ally, these pro grams would in - 

form the now widely read and cited Sci ence 


60

and En gi neer ing In di ca tors which the Na tional 

Sci ence Board (NSB) sub mits to Con gress and 

the Pres i dent in its cur rent for mat ev ery two 

years since 1972. 

The vi sion for the NSF orig i nated with 

Vannevar Bush’s re port, Sci ence: The End less 

Fron tier (Bush, [1945] 1960). Re quested by 

Pres i dent Roo se velt in 1944 and pub lished as a 

blue print for post war re search pol icy un der 

Pres i dent Tru man, this study em bod ies the 

per spec tive of the sci en tific elite and in dus try 

in the United States on the fed eral gov ern ment 

role in sup port ing sci en tific re search. The re - 

port called for a fed eral agency, which was to 

be called the Na tional Re search Foun da tion, to 

sup port ba sic sci en tific re search. 

Ac cord ing to Bush’s orig i nal vi sion, gov - 

ern ment sup port was to be “free from po lit i cal 

in flu ence, [and] free from the in flu ence of 

pres sure groups” (Bush, [1945] 1960, 51). 

Bush ar gued that ba sic re search would pro vide 

the na tion with fun da men tal sci en tific knowl - 

edge. Ba sic sci en tific knowl edge, not in tended 

to pro duce im me di ate prac ti cal re sults, would 

nev er the less even tu ally ben e fit na tional in dus - 

try, in the form of “new prod ucts and pro - 

cesses,” as well as “more jobs, higher wages, 

[and] shorter hours” (18). Em brac ing an elit ist 

con cep tion of who was to carry out this re - 

search, the Bush re port pro posed the “re newal 

of our sci en tific tal ent” by means of schol ar - 

ships and fel low ships based on merit. This 

meant that only the best and bright est could en - 

sure the health and growth of ba sic re search. 

Be tween 1945 and 1950, the leg is la tive pro - 

cess that ul ti mately re sulted in the NSF Act of 

1950 was marked by a strug gle be tween sci en - 

tific elit ism, led by Bush, and pop u lism, led by 

Sen a tor Harley Kilgore (Dem., WVa). The 

Bush-led sci en tific elite ad vo cated a sci ence 

pol icy that gave sci en tists max i mum au ton - 

omy in their gov ern ment-funded re search ef - 

forts. Kilgore and his sup port ers ad vo cated a 

New Deal agenda for sci ence in which the pub - 

lic would ex er cise more con trol over fed eral 

re search (Kleinman, 1995). At the end of this 

de bate, Bush’s vi sion for a ba sic re search 

agenda pre vailed. As Dan iel Kleinman sum - 

ma rizes the out come, 

sci en tists’ war work had fur ther en hanced their 

sym bolic cap i tal and Bush’s and his col leagues’ 

so cial cap i tal. Bush’s in ti mate re la tion ship with 

Pres i dent Roo se velt pro vided the op por tu nity 

and in sti tu tional lo ca tion from which elite sci - 

en tists and their busi ness al lies could con trib ute 

sub stan tially to de fin ing the terms of de bate and 

later in flu ence the fur ther course of de bate. (99) 

Such a sum mary nev er the less ig nores a cru - 

cial as pect of the de bate, that of the na tional 

im age ap pealed to by Bush. Since its in cep - 

tion, as the his to rian Fred er ick Jack son Turner 

ar gued in 1893, the char ac ter of the United 

States and many of its po lit i cal fea tures were 

de fined by the pres ence of a fron tier. The early 

found ers saw the pres ence of an open fron tier 

as en abling them to es tab lish a new state, freed 

from the hob bling lim i ta tions and cor rup tions 

of Eu ro pean tra di tions. The ideal fig ures of 

Amer i can lit er a ture, such as the heroes of 

James Fenimore Coo per’s nov els, were men 

and women of the fron tier. The Civil War was 

in part fought over whether the west ern fron - 

tier was to be con tam i nated by slav ery. What 

Bush did was to har ness this vi sion of the na - 

tion as a com mu nity de fined by the fron tier 

and tie it to sci ence. Sci en tists were pre sented 

as peo ple of a new fron tier, one that would 

never close. In Bush’s words: 

It has been ba sic United States pol icy that Gov - 

ern ment should fos ter the open ing of new fron - 

tiers. It opened the seas to clip per ships and fur - 

nished land for pi o neers. Al though these 

fron tiers have more or less dis ap peared, the 

fron tier of sci ence re mains. It is in keep ing with 

the Amer i can tra di tion—one which has made 

the United States great—that new fron tiers 

shall be made ac ces si ble for de vel op ment by all 

Amer i cans. (Bush, [1945] 1960, 6) 

Be fore the be gin ning of the Cold War, Bush 

ap pealed not to the threat of com mu nism to 

mar shal con tin u ing post-World War II na tionstate 

sup port for sci ence and en gi neer ing, but 

to the pos i tive tra di tion of the open fron tier and 

the United States as in ti mately tied to such an 

im age. 

Signed into law by Pres i dent Tru man on 

May 10, 1950, the NSF Act au tho rized and di - 

rected the new Foun da tion to “pro mote the 

prog ress of sci ence, to ad vance the na tional 

health, pros per ity and wel fare, to se cure the 

na tional de fense, and [to ful fill] other pur - 

poses” (Pub lic Law 81-507). Al though Con - 

gress did not in tend for NSF to be a mis sionori 

ented agency, such as the De part ment of 

Ag ri cul ture or the Na tional Aero nau tics and 

Space Agency (NASA), the au tho riz ing leg is - 

la tion im plic itly de fined a na tional mis sion. 


61

Con gress, NSF of fi cials, and in ter est groups 

have used this idea through out its 50-year his - 

tory to suc cess fully re de fine its re search, ed u - 

ca tion, and hu man-re source pro grams ac cord - 

ing to emerg ing na tional needs. In the early 

1990s, for ex am ple, con gres sio nal com mit tees 

in vited groups to dis cuss how “new op por tu ni - 

ties and chal lenges [which] have been cre ated 

by the end of the Cold War, the rise of mul ti lat - 

eral eco nomic com pe ti tion from abroad, and 

the emer gence of global en vi ron men tal prob - 

lems” might re di rect the na tional mis sion of 

NSF (Subcommitte on Sci ence, 1993). 

The leg is la tive pro cess alone, how ever, is 

in suf fi cient to shape the NSF na tional mis sion 

when new na tional needs emerge. Within a 

cul tural space de fined by an im age of the na - 

tion un der threat, and the lim its of what is 

sayable framed by the emer gent dis course, 

groups com pete to cap ture prob lems of pub lic 

at ten tion. As new im ages of the na tion ap pear 

on the pub lic ho ri zon, dif fer ent groups strug - 

gle to de fine the mean ing of such terms as “na - 

tional health,” “na tional pros per ity and wel - 

fare,” and “na tional de fense,” and pro pose 

so lu tions for NSF to tackle. These strug gles 

have been par tic u larly vis i ble within the ed u - 

ca tion di rec tor ate. 

Since the 1960s, NSF has be come the most 

im por tant fed eral agency in charge of de vel op - 

ing and pro mot ing sci ence and en gi neer ing ed - 

u ca tion. From the launch ing of Sput nik to the 

pres ent, NSF has used two pro grams—the Na - 

tional Reg is ter and Man power Stud ies and the 

EHR Di rec tor ate—to en gage in de bates re - 

gard ing the role of sci ence and en gi neer ing ed - 

u ca tion for na tional need. 

The Na tional Reg is ter pro gram, whose aim 

is to “make pos si ble the lo ca tion and iden ti fi - 

ca tion of in di vid u als with spe cial ized skills 

when needed for Gov ern men tal pur poses, in - 

clud ing mo bi li za tion,” has served to lo cate and 

iden tify sci en tists and en gi neers ac cord ing to 

time-spe cific na tional needs. Sim i larly, the 

Man power Stud ies ac tiv ity, now the Di vi sion 

of Sci ence Re source Sta tis tics (SRS), as “the 

cen tral pro gram in the fed eral gov ern ment for 

the pro vi sion of data on the sup ply, de mand, 

ed u ca tion, and char ac ter is tics of the Na tion’s 

sci en tific and tech ni cal per son nel re sources,” 

has pro duced pro jec tions for time-spe cific, 

sup ply-and-de mand na tional sce nar ios. Since 

the 1960s, as new im ages of the na tion have 

emerged, these pro grams have changed their 

names, and even their lo ca tion within NSF, but 

not their broad ob jec tives: to lo cate and pro ject 

sci en tists and en gi neers ac cord ing to emerg ing 

na tional needs. In short, these pro grams have 

be come tech nol o gies of gov ern ment. 

NSF data and pro jec tions have be come the 

most le git i mat ing source of in for ma tion re - 

gard ing the state of sci ence and en gi neer ing in 

the U.S. As NSF His to rian J. Mer ton Eng land 

re ports, al ready by the 

late 1950s more and more graphs, charts, and ta - 

bles in books and ar ti cles car ried the no ta tion 

“Source: Na tional Sci ence Foun da tion,” a des - 

ig na tion that was be com ing a stamp of au then - 

tic ity. How ever shaky NSF’s fig ures on sci en - 

tific per son nel ... might be, and they were 

largely es ti mates, they were far more ac cu rate 

than those avail able be fore and were be com ing 

steadily better.” (Eng land, 1982, 254) 

Lo cat ing, iden ti fy ing, pro ject ing, and 

hence (re)de fin ing pop u la tion cat e go ries of 

sci en tists and en gi neers is only one side of the 

NSF role in cre at ing sci en tists and en gi neers. 

The other side is im ple ment ing sci ence ed u ca - 

tion pro grams in or der to pro duce the kinds of 

sci en tists and en gi neers the na tion needs. 

Whether in the form of Fel low ships, Teacher 

Train ing, or Cur ric u lum Im prove ment, these 

pro grams have been aimed at the “de vel op - 

ment of the in di vid ual sci en tist” while en sur - 

ing the “produc[tion] of ad e quate num bers of 

young sci en tists and en gi neers qual i fied to do 

the things our na tional goals re quire”(Com - 

mit tee on Sci ence and As tro nau tics, 1960a; 

Na tional Sci ence Foun da tion, 1960). 

To day pop u lar and ac a demic me dia, ed u ca - 

tors, policymakers, and oth ers de pend heavily 

on NSF’s eval u a tions of the health of Amer i - 

can sci ence and en gi neer ing, par tic u larly as it 

com pares with that of other in dus tri al ized 

coun tries. 

Conclusion: Frontier versus Terror 

One out come of NSF in for ma tion and pro - 

jec tions is that they have guided pol i cies and 

sub se quent bud get al lo ca tions to NSF pro - 

grams, thereby cre at ing a con flict of in ter est. 

Through its own pro jec tions, NSF has in - 

formed, rec om mended, and shaped the 

policymaking pro cess in sci ence and en gi neer - 

ing to its own ben e fit. Leg is la tors, NSF of fi - 

cials, and other in ter ested par ties have been us - 

ing NSF pro jec tions dur ing ap pro pri a tion and 

au tho ri za tion hear ings for NSF pro grams, le - 


62

git i miz ing NSF as the source of knowl edge 

that shapes its own pol i cies. 

But more than just a bu reau cracy en deav or - 

ing to per pet u ate it self, NSF has emerged as a 

unique in sti tu tional so lu tion to the po lit i cal 

and eco nomic prob lems sur round ing sci en tific 

and tech no log i cal hu man-re source de vel op - 

ment. More than any other fed eral agency, 

NSF has be come a fed eral in stru ment for al lo - 

cat ing peo ple in sci ence and en gi neer ing fields 

with out di rect fed eral in ter ven tion or cen tral - 

ized pol i cies of hu man-re source al lo ca tion, 

such as those fol lowed in the for mer USSR, 

and in many West ern Eu ro pean de moc ra cies. 

Con sti tu tional hur dles and the lack of bi par ti - 

san sup port for na tional workforce pol i cies 

have made of NSF an in sti tu tional so lu tion to 

com plex con sti tu tional and po lit i cal prob lems 

sur round ing sci ence and en gi neer ing per son - 

nel: how to re di rect (align) the workforce in 

fields that the fed eral gov ern ment con sid ers 

im por tant for na tional in ter est with out in ter - 

fer ing with state and lo cal au thor ity over ed u - 

ca tion, and while safe guard ing the free dom of 

in di vid u als to choose their pro fes sions. 

And this ten sion be tween ide als in ed u ca - 

tion is re flected in a ten sion be tween na tional 

im ages. De spite the re cent ap peal to threats 

and ter ror ism, the NSF has con tin ued to ap peal 

as well to the im age of the fron tier. It funds 

“Phys ics Fron tier Cen ters” and ex plores the 

“Ocean Fron tier.” And be fore Sep tem ber 11, 

2001, NSF Di rec tor Colwell spoke re peat edly 

of “Un com mon Knowl edge to Com mon 

Ground: A New Fron tier for Sci en tific Lit er - 

acy” (Colwell, 2001a), “Sci ence as the Fron - 

tier and Fron tiers within Sci ence” (Colwell, 

2001b), and “Sci ence, Tech nol ogy and Ed u ca - 

tion at the Fron tiers” (Colwell, 2001c). De - 

spite its post 9/11 de cline, this al ter na tive im - 

age as a plat form for jus ti fy ing pol i cies in 

sup port of ed u cat ing sci en tists and en gi neers 

can not be ig nored. In the long run it may ap - 

peal to higher ide als and ac tu ally pro vide a 

deeper means for ad dress ing ter ror ist threats. 

REFERENCES 

Averch, Harvey. (1985) A Stra te gic Anal y sis of Sci ence 

and Tech nol ogy Pol icy. Bal ti more: John Hopkins Uni - 

versity Press. 

Barlett, Thomas. (2003) “De grees of Se cu rity: Col leges 

Start Pro grams to Train Stu dents for Jobs in Home land 

Defense,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 49: A24. 

Bush, Vannevar. ([1945] 1960) Science—The End less 

Fron tier: A Re port to the Pres i dent on a Pro gram for 

Post war Sci en tific Re search. Wash ing ton, DC: Na tional 

Sci ence Foun da tion. 

Colwell, Rita R. (2001a) Un com mon Knowl edge to Com - 

mon Ground: A New Fron tier for Sci en tific Lit er acy. Pa - 

per pre sented at the Amer i can As so ci a tion for the 

Ad vance ment of Sci ence, San Fran cisco, Cal i for nia 

(Feb ru ary 18). 

Colwell, Rita R. (2001b, March 6) Sci ence as the Fron tier 

and Fron tiers within Sci ence. Pa per pre sented at the 

Howard Uni ver sity Lec ture Se ries On Grad u ate Ed u ca - 

tion, Wash ing ton, DC. 

Colwell, Rita R. (2001c) Sci ence, Tech nol ogy and Ed u ca - 

tion at the Fron tiers. Pa per pre sented at the SUNY- 

Stony Brook Mil len nium Tech nol o gies: Con verg ing on 

Growth, Stony Brook, New York (March 20). 

Colwell, Rita R. (2002) Sci ence as Pa tri o tism. Pa per pre - 

sented at the An nual Meet ing of the Uni ver si ties Re - 

search As so ci a tion, Wash ing ton, DC. 

Com mit tee on Sci ence and As tro nau tics. (1960a) A Study 

of Sci en tific and Tech ni cal Man power: A Pro gram of 

Col lec tion, Tab u la tion, and Anal y sis of Data of the Na - 

tional Sci ence Foun da tion: U.S. House of Rep re sen ta - 

tives. 

Com mit tee on Sci ence and Tech nol ogy for Coun ter ing 

Ter ror ism, Na tional Re search Coun cil. (2002) Mak ing 

the Na tion Safer: The Role of Sci ence and Tech nol ogy in 

Coun ter ing Ter ror ism. Wash ing ton, DC: The Na tional 

Acad e mies. 

Downey, Gary. (1998) The Ma chine in Me: An An thro - 

pol o gist Sits Among Com puter En gi neers. New York: 

Routledge. 

Downey, Gary. (1999) Ped a gogy as a Cul tural Pro ject: 

Theory, Intervention, and the Anthropology of Science 

and Technology. Pa per pre sented at the Amer i can An - 

thro pol ogy As so ci a tion An nual Meet ing. 

Engardio, Pete. (1994) “21st Cen tury Cap i tal ism: The 

New Global Workforce,” Business Week (18 No vem - 

ber). 

Eng land, J. Mer ton. (1982) A Pa tron for Pure Sci ence: 

The Na tional Sci ence Foun da tion’s For ma tive Years, 


63

1945–1957. Wash ing ton, DC: Na tional Sci ence Foun - 

da tion. 

Foucault, Michel. ([1968]1991a) “Pol i tics and the Study 

of Dis course,” In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 

eds., The Foucault Ef fect: Stud ies in Governmentality. 

Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press, 53–72. 

Foucault, Michel. (1991b) “Governmentality,” In G. 

Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Pe ter Miller, eds., The 

Foucault Ef fect: Stud ies in Governmentality. Chicago: 

Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press, 87–104. 

Gordon, Colin. (1991) “Gov ern men tal Ra tio nal ity: An 

In tro duc tion,” In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, P. Miller, eds., 

The Foucault Ef fect: Stud ies in Governmentality. 

Chicago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press, 1–51. 

Holden, Con stance. (1989) “Wanted: 675,000 Fu ture Sci - 

entists and Engineers,” Science 244: 1536. 

Kleinman, Dan iel. (1995) Pol i tics on the End less Fron - 

tier: Post war Re search Pol icy in the United States. Dur - 

ham, NC: Duke Uni ver sity Press. 

Marcus, George. (1999) Eth nog ra phy through Thick and 

Thin. New York: Prince ton Uni ver sity Press. 

Milbank, Dana. (1990) “Short age of Sci en tists Ap - 

proaches a Cri sis As More Stu dents Drop Out of the 

Field,” Wall Street Jour nal (17 Sep tem ber). 

Miller, Pe ter, and Nikolas Rose. (1993) “Gov ern ing Eco - 

nomic Life,” In M. Gane and T. John son, eds., 

Foucault’s New Do mains. Lon don: Routledge, 75–105. 

Na tional Sci ence Foun da tion. (1960) An nual Re port. 

Wash ing ton, DC: Na tional Sci ence Foun da tion. 

Subcommitte on Sci ence, Com mit tee on Sci ence, Space, 

and Tech nol ogy. (1993) The Mis sion of the Na tional 

Sci ence Foun da tion: U.S. House of Rep re sen ta tives. 


64

MOD ELS IN PAN THER BI OL OGY AND RADIOBIOLOGY 

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AS SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP 

Kristen Shrader-Frechette 

In his au to bi og ra phy, Fran cis Crick (1988, 

50–51) tells how, as a be gin ning grad u ate stu - 

dent, he was re garded by No bel Prize win ner 

and Caven dish Pro fes sor Law rence Bragg. 

Bragg thought Crick was “a nui sance who did - 

n’t get on with ex per i ments . . . talked too much 

and in too crit i cal a man ner [and was] ‘rock ing 

the boat.’” Can one make a case for be hav ing 

like Crick? And for say ing sci en tists and phi - 

los o phers of sci ence, al most uni ver sally, have 

failed in their du ties to “rock the boat” in the 

face of sci en tif i cally or eth i cally ques tion able 

re search? 

An swer ing in the af fir ma tive, this pa per 

out lines con tem po rary bi o log i cal case stud ies 

(1) on the en dan gered Florida pan ther and (2) 

on the In ter na tional Com mis sion on Ra dio log - 

i cal Pro tec tion’s 2003 bi o log i cal rec om men - 

da tions; (3) traces some flawed ways of think - 

ing about phi los o phy of sci ence and eth ics; (4) 

sketches an al ter na tive eth ics of “sci en tific cit - 

i zen ship”; (5) ar gues that all sci en tists and phi - 

los o phers of sci ence have du ties to be sci en - 

tific cit i zens; (6) sug gests ways re search and 

ed u ca tion in sci ence and phi los o phy of sci ence 

must be re claimed in the light of sci en tific cit i - 

zen ship; and (7) of fers a brief con clu sion. 

The Eth ics of Florida Pan ther Stud ies 

Con sider the case of the Florida pan ther, 

Felis concolor coryi. An en dan gered um brella 

and key stone spe cies, mon i tored through ra - 

dio te lem e try col lars since 1981, the pan ther is 

im por tant for the sur vival of many other spe - 

cies in its hab i tat. East of the Mis sis sippi, only 

about 75 pan thers, in clud ing only 15–18 

breed ing fe males, live only in South Florida, 

mostly on pub lic land (Comiskey et al. 2002; 

Land et al. 2002; McBride 2001, 2002; Seal et 

al. 1989, 62–63, 69, and 106; Kostyack, 2002, 

6). 

The pan ther is in trou ble be cause the same 

poorly planned de vel op ment that dev as tated 

the East ern Everglades is now al lowed in the 

West ern Everglades. While US tax pay ers are 

spend ing $8 bil lion to re store the East ern 

Everglades, since 1993 the US Army Corps of 

En gi neers (ACE) and the US Fish and Wild life 

Ser vice (FWS) have turned down no per mits 

for de vel op ing the pan ther’s only hab i tat, in 

West ern-Everglades. Suc cess ful per mit ting 

oc curs in part be cause de vel op ers have hired a 

bi ol o gist touted as the “fore most ex pert on the 

Florida pan ther” (Agripartners, 2001, 3), al - 

though his sci ence has been called into ques - 

tion (Slack, 2002). 

This con ser va tion bi ol o gist and con sul tantto-de 

vel op ers, now in charge of spe cies-re cov - 

ery pro grams else where, has re peat edly de - 

fended West ern-Everglades de vel op ment 

(Agripartners 2001; NWF, 2001), by us ing at 

least six sci en tif i cally and eth i cally ques tion - 

able claims. These are that (1) re gard ing pop u - 

la tion, the Florida pan ther is healthy, ro bust, 

and can sur vive for at least 100 years (Maehr 

and Lacy 2002, 972; Maehr, 1997); (2) re gard - 

ing ge net ics, there is no cur rent in breed ing de - 

pres sion (Maehr and Caddick 1995; see Maehr 

et al., 2002a); (3) re gard ing prey, there are too 

few deer in its West ern-Everglades hab i tat 

(Maehr and Lacy, 2002, 974); (4) re gard ing 

mor tal ity, Florida high ways are no big prob - 

lem (Maehr, 2001, 1991); (5) re gard ing hab i - 

tat, qual ity is de ter mined by amount and qual - 

ity of for ests (Maehr and Deason, 2002); (6) 

re gard ing col o ni za tion, low-in ten sity pri vate 

lands in cen tral Florida are de sir able (Maehr et 

al. 2002a, 187; Maehr 2001, 3-4; Maehr and 

Deason, 2002, 400). As a re sult of his claims, 

Everglades de struc tion is re peat ing it self. 

Marjory Stoneman Douglas (founder of 

“Friends of the Everglades”), where are you? 

The con sul tant’s first, or healthy-pop u la - 

tion claim, is flawed be cause it is based on a 

Pop u la tion Vi a bil ity Anal y sis (PVA) that is 

nonempirical, pre mised on counterfactual 

con di tions, and em ploys er ro ne ous 

parameterization. For ex am ple, his PVA as - 

sumes that (a) half the pop u la tion is made up of 

reg u larly-breed ing fe males; (b) no hab i tat loss 

will oc cur; (c) there is equal ran dom ac cess to 

mates; (d) no ge netic ef fects of in breed ing oc - 

cur in the near term (100 years), and (e) no hu - 

man im ped i ments to move ment ex ist, such as 

high ways (Maehr et al., 2002b). Yet all five 


65

PVA con di tions are false for the Florida pan - 

ther (McBride 2002, 2001; Kostyack, 2002, 5). 

For in stance, the model as sumes a con stant 

mor tal ity rate, but in each of the last four years, 

six or seven pan thers (al most 10 per cent of the 

to tal pop u la tion) have been killed on Florida 

high ways (Land et al., 2002), a dou bling of an - 

nual high way deaths since 1999. The 

parameterization of the PVA model also errs 

be cause its es ti mates for ini tial pop u la tion, re - 

pro duc tion rates, and kit ten-sur vival rates all 

rely ei ther on nonempirical guesses or on ex - 

trap o la tions from only a small part of the data. 

For ex am ple, the 80-per cent sur vival is based 

only on sev eral lit ters, is un sub stan ti ated by 

field data, and is con tro ver sial (McBride 2001; 

Comiskey et al. 2002; Slack, 2002). Such 

short com ings can ex plain how the con sul tant 

is able to make such op ti mis tic claims for an 

en dan gered, iso lated spe cies, with 15–18 

breed ing fe males—claims that give it greater 

fe cun dity and sur vival than even Eng lish spar - 

rows. 

His sec ond, or ge net ics, claim is flawed be - 

cause the con sul tant him self has done no ge - 

net ics test ing, and there has been re peated lab - 

o ra tory and field proof of in breed ing 

de pres sion, given ram pant prob lems like fail - 

ure to breed and un de scended tes ti cles 

(McBride 2002, 2001, 5 and 9; Comiskey et al. 

2002; FPWG 2000, pp.4-5; Land and Lacy 

2000; Roelke et al. 1993; O’Brien et al., 1990). 

The con sul tant ig nored the con sen sus of ex ist - 

ing ge netic ev i dence (Land and Lacy 2000; 

Roelke et al. 1993; O’Brien et al., 1990); 

trimmed the data; used a small sam ple size; 

then on the ba sis of the small sam ple (like 

look ing for an elec tron with a flash light), 

claimed his in abil ity to find a sta tis ti cally-sig - 

nif i cant dif fer ence as ev i dence of no in breed - 

ing de pres sion (Maehr and Cox, 1995). He 

con fused the ab sence of ev i dence, af ter us ing 

the wrong test, as ev i dence of ab sence. 

The con sul tant’s third, or prey, claim is 

flawed be cause of his us ing a Park-Ser vice 

model that grossly un der es ti mates num bers of 

deer be cause it re lies on sur veys that used 

early-morn ing, plane over-flights with spot - 

ters, a tech nique that yields only 20 per cent to 

50 per cent as many deer as us ing spot ters in he - 

li cop ters. Bi ol o gists al ready have shown that 

Florida-pan ther flights, us ing an in fra red cam - 

era, could find twice as many deer as the meth - 

ods used by the de vel oper-con sul tant (Ha vens 

and Sharp, 1998). 

The fourth, or mor tal ity, claim is flawed be - 

cause the con sul tant does not de fine, quan ti ta - 

tively, what he means in say ing high ways pose 

no big threat to pan ther mor tal ity. He re lies on 

pre-1999 data, yet be cause of all the 

Everglades de vel op ment he has jus ti fied, an - 

nu ally since 1999 nearly 10 per cent of the to tal 

pan ther pop u la tion has been killed on Florida 

high ways (Land et al., 2002). 

The fifth, or hab i tat, claim errs be cause the 

con sul tant says the Everglades are too wet for 

pan thers, and for est is its only vi tal hab i tat 

(Maehr 2001, 1997; Maehr and Lacy, 2002). 

But here he cooks his data through a rep re sen - 

ta tive ness bias. He looks at only 60 per cent of 

pan thers, those liv ing in semi-for ested ar eas 

north of I-75 (Comiskey et al., 2002); he ex - 

cludes the 40 per cent liv ing south of I-75, 

where the hab i tat is a mo saic of prai ries, 

marshes, and tree is lands; then he con cludes 

all pan thers pre fer for ests. He also ig nores spa - 

tial er rors caused by the fact that each pixel, 

gen er ated by pan ther ra dio te lem e try, has an 

av er age er ror of 224 me ters (Maehr and Cox 

1995; see Comiskey et al., 2002). In us ing 

these pix els, but in nei ther pro vid ing un cer - 

tainty bounds on his pan ther-po si tion val ues 

nor in clud ing hab i tat in for ma tion for 224 me - 

ters around the te lem e try points, he over es ti - 

mates for est im por tance and ig nores the 

patchy land scape. Even worse, he uses only 

day time te lem e try for this noc tur nal an i mal 

(Maehr and Cox, 1995), a tem po ral bias, then 

de fines the day time-te lem e try (or rest ing) hab - 

i tat as “pre ferred,” and names all other ar eas 

“avoided” hab i tat. His highly equiv o cal def i ni - 

tion of pre ferred hab i tat (as rest ing) thereby as - 

sumes that pan thers don’t pre fer breed ing, 

den ning, and hunt ing hab i tat (Shrader- 

Frechette and Mc Coy, 1993, 213–14). An other 

glar ing flaw in the hab i tat claim is his us ing 

crude sat el lite data (Maehr, 1997), de pict ing 

only for est cover, to al lege that cen tral-Florida 

pine for ests are prime pan ther hab i tat. But 

what pan thers need is the understory, for 

breed ing/den ning/ hunt ing, not the for est per 

se. Yet the con sul tant ig nores the fact that 

many cen tral-Florida pine for ests have vir tu - 

ally no understories. Pan thers use pine for ests 

only dur ing the early years af ter burn ing, when 

the understory is pres ent (Dick son and Beier 

2002, Dees et al., 2001). 

The sixth, or col o ni za tion, claim (about pri - 

vate lands in cen tral Florida) like wise errs be - 

cause of the understory prob lem, the tem po ral 


66

ias of day time te lem e try, the spa tial bias of 

us ing only data north of I-75, and fail ure to 

take ac count of pixel un cer tainty and vari abil - 

ity—all rep re sen ta tive ness bi ases that cre ate a 

log i cal fal lacy of com po si tion. More over, 

patchy cen tral Florida is use less to the pan ther, 

un less there are 200–300 square miles of con - 

tig u ous lands per pan ther, few roads, and the 

re quired understory (McBride 2001, 6–7; 

McBride, 2002, 12–13), none of which are met 

in the Walt Dis ney World area of West Florida. 

But if not, on what ba sis does the con sul tant 

pro pose cen tral-Florida col o ni za tion? He 

makes the un tested claim that pan thers can live 

solely on patchy pri vate prop erty, co ex ist ing 

with “low-in ten sity land-use”(Maehr and 

Deason, 2002, 400). But this is a sur pris ing 

sci en tific con clu sion. (a) If the pan ther pre fers 

the pri vate land and hu man dis tur bance of cen - 

tral Florida, why did he move out of it to the re - 

mote pub lic lands of the Everglades? (b) Why 

is there no ev i dence what so ever of re pro duc - 

tion on these pri vate lands or of breed ing fe - 

males be ing there (Kautz and Kawula 2000; 

McBride 2002, 12; FPWG, 2000)? How would 

one fit the hun dreds of square miles of con tig u - 

ous hab i tat re quired by breed ing pan thers into 

the patchy en vi ron ment of cen tral Florida? (c) 

How would pan thers avoid be ing killed by 

hunt ers or their at tack ing live stock and hu - 

mans, as in Cal i for nia? (d) What will high way 

mor tal ity be on the many greater roads of cen - 

tral Florida? (e) If he is right about pri vate land 

in cen tral Florida, why do pre lim i nary re sults 

of an on go ing Fish and Wild life Con ser va tion 

Com mis sion (FFWCC) sur vey of po ten tial 

pan ther hab i tat in cen tral Florida (McBride, 

2002), eval u at ing tract size, prox im ity and 

con nec tiv ity of tracts, prey base, hu man ac tiv - 

ity, and high way den sity, fail to sup port his 

view? Why do vir tu ally all ex ist ing Florida 

pan thers (7/8) live on pub lic land (Slack, 2002, 

24)? (f) If his rec om mended “pri vate co op er a - 

tion” among cen tral-Florida pri vate land own - 

ers, with out gov ern ment reg u la tion, will work 

to pro tect the pan ther (Maehr, 2001, 3), why 

did n’t it work in the past? 

Al though these six claims re veal the con - 

sul tant’s flawed pan ther sci ence, why has he 

dom i nated pan ther-re cov ery and West ern- 

Everglades pol icy? One rea son is that peer re - 

view ers of jour nals like Wild life So ci ety Bul le - 

tin and Con ser va tion Bi ol ogy (where the con - 

sul tant pub lished) did not ex pose his flawed 

sci ence, prob a bly be cause there are so few 

pan ther ex perts east of the Mis sis sippi. Also 

the con sul tant’s ar ti cles mis led re view ers. He 

never ad mits, for ex am ple, us ing only day time 

te lem e try; one has to know the orig i nal 

FFWCC data source (Slack, 2002), where this 

fact is re vealed. Like wise, he never ad mits us - 

ing only pan ther data north of I-75. In stead, 

one has to ex am ine the num bers and data 

points in his ar ti cles, then com pare them to the 

orig i nal data set, pub lished by the state (e.g., 

Land et al., 2002), to see what he omit ted. 

Thus, a first eth i cal prob lem is the bi ol o gist’s 

mis lead ing claims and omis sions about the na - 

ture of his data, meth ods, and in ter pre ta tions. 

An other eth i cal er ror is his not tak ing ac count 

of the eth i cal con se quences of his flawed sci - 

ence, like his crude “for est” def i ni tion of pan - 

ther hab i tat: let ting fi nan ciers dredge, fill, and 

de velop West ern Everglades, what ever is not 

forest. 

Of course, it may be ac ci den tal that the six 

er ro ne ous claims (about pan ther pop u la tion, 

ge net ics, and so on) all sup port de vel op ing 

West ern Everglades and pro mot ing pri vate 

lands in Cen tral Florida as pan ther hab i tat. 

Even if they are ran dom sci en tific er rors, the 

con sul tant has a third eth i cal prob lem, con flict 

of in ter est. Af ter work ing on pan ther mon i tor - 

ing on the pay roll of the FFWCC, and while 

us ing its data, and while cur rently lead ing en - 

dan gered-spe cies re cov ery pro grams in Ken - 

tucky, as a ten ured UK fac ulty mem ber, this 

con sul tant con tin ues to col lect large sums of 

money, tes ti fy ing on be half of de vel op ing the 

very hab i tat he was paid to pro tect. Landon 

Com pa nies/Agripartners paid him a re tainer of 

$4,500 per month, $54,000 per year, and he 

pro vided sworn ex pert opin ion, de scrib ing his 

op ti mis tic PVA re sults and his for est-cen tered 

eval u a tion of pan ther hab i tat. He ar gued that 

be cause the pan ther was so healthy, his cli ent’s 

Everglades de vel op ment would do no dam age 

(Maehr, 2001, 1 and 6). 

In the Daniels de vel op ment case (Corps 

Per mit No. 199130802), the pan ther lost more 

than 800 acres of pri or ity hab i tat in West ern 

Everglades, while a quar ter of a mil lion dol lars 

was paid to con sul tants, the chief one be ing 

this con ser va tion bi ol o gist, for per mit tes ti - 

mony. The US FWS wanted com pen sa tion for 

loss of one third of this prime pan ther hab i tat, 

but the con sul tant’s tes ti mony, based on his 

frac tional val u a tion of for est patches, ex clud - 

ing all other landcovers, en abled no com pen - 

sa tion what so ever to be paid for loss of Florida 

SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP 

67

pan ther hab i tat, but only wetlands-mit i ga tion 

for 94 acres (NWF 2002; Maehr 2001, 1 and 6; 

Thoemke and Payton 2001; Slack, 2001). He 

like wise tes ti fied for suc cess ful de vel op ment 

pro jects of Wilkison and As so ci ates in Na ples, 

Florida (Thoemke and Payton, 2001, 1); for 

de vel op ers of the new Florida Gulf Coast Uni - 

ver sity; and for golf-course McMansions like 

“The Hab i tat” de vel op ment in Lee County. In 

Feb ru ary 2003, when Florida Rock In dus tries 

re ceived min ing per mits on more than 6,000 

acres of prime Everglades pan ther hab i tat 

(Slack, 2002, 8), he used his nar row, day timete 

lem e try def i ni tion of pan ther hab i tat to ar gue 

the de vel oper should pay for pan ther mit i ga - 

tion for only the 66 acres of for ested wetlands, 

less than one per cent of the to tal im pacted 

(Slack 2002, 10; Kostyack, 2002 ). What 

would a court say if some one took away 1,000 

acres from a farmer, then em ployed te lem e try 

data from only the time the farmer was sleep - 

ing in his house, then said the farmer had to be 

com pen sated, for his farm land loss, only for 

the small area in which he ac tu ally slept? 

Of course, some one may claim that the for - 

est-hab i tat def i ni tion is just an hon est sci en - 

tific mis take. But if so, why did the con sul tant 

eval u ate the same land in con sis tently? When 

he as sessed cur rent pan ther hab i tat, sought by 

“dredge-and fill” Everglades-de vel op ers, he 

in con sis tently as signed no value what so ever to 

ag ri cul tural lands used by the pan ther for hunt - 

ing prey, so that the de vel op ers could get it. But 

when he as sessed pro posed ag ri cul tural lands, 

to be used for mit i ga tion of hab i tat loss, he as - 

signed them pos i tive value as pan ther hab i tat 

(NWF et al. 2001, 62–63; Kostyack 2002; 

Thoemke and Payton, 2001). This sug gests an 

eth i cal lapse, twist ing the truth for those who 

pay him. 

He also mis rep re sents his work for de vel op - 

ers and mis rep re sents his af fil i a tions as purely 

ac a demic in pub li ca tions and in his pan ther ad - 

vi sory work. In 1998, the con sul tant tes ti fied 

on be half of Everglades de vel op ers; less than 

three years later, he signed an af fi da vit stat ing 

that he had not tes ti fied for any de vel op ers in 

the “pre ced ing 4 years” (Thoemke and Payton, 

2001, 2). Was it a mis rep re sen ta tion when he 

tes ti fied—on be half of an Everglades-de vel - 

oper pay ing him $54,000 per year—that “the 

im pact of hu man ac tiv i ties on pan ther hab i tat 

and be hav ior is un cer tain” (Agripartners 2001, 

4 and 6; Maehr, 2001, 1)? Or when he said no 

stud ies show pan thers are “averse to hu man ac - 

tiv ity” (Maehr, 2001, 7 and 4)? 

A sixth eth i cal prob lem is that the con sul - 

tant ap pears to use sci en tific terms so as to mis - 

lead. He re peat edly de scribes hab i tat used only 

for rest ing, north of I-75, as “pre ferred pan ther 

hab i tat” when he should have said “pre ferred 

as rest ing hab i tat.” And why should he say 

pan thers are able to “col o nize” cen tral Florida 

(Maehr et al., 2002a, 187), when he knows 

breed ing fe males have never been doc u mented 

there since mon i tor ing be gan in 1981? Why 

would he char ac ter ize West ern Everglades in - 

cor rectly, as a pan ther-pop u la tion “sink,” “the 

land of the liv ing dead” (Maehr, 1997), al - 

though many pan thers live and breed there? 

But the bi ol o gist-con sul tant gets away with 

these eth i cal and sci en tific prob lems, in part, 

be cause sci en tists, phi los o phers of sci ence, 

peer re view ers, state, and fed eral of fi cials do 

not speak out. In stead of set ting the sci en tific 

re cord straight, the state agency in charge of 

pan ther mon i tor ing chose him as lead au thor 

on sev eral of its pub li ca tions, but with out dis - 

clos ing his con flicts of in ter ests. In 2001, when 

the Na tional Wild life Fed er a tion (Thoemke 

and Payton, 2001) blew the whis tle on his con - 

flicts of in ter est and re quested their dis clo sure, 

the US FWS Su per vi sor (Slack, 2001) re - 

sponded that no dis clo sure was nec es sary. 

The Eth ics of the ICRP Eco log i cal Risk 

Recommendations 

Just as “fol low ing the money” seems to ac - 

count for eth i cally and sci en tif i cally flawed 

pan ther re search, it also ex plains the flawed bi - 

o log i cal rec om men da tions is sued in 2003 by 

the In ter na tional Com mis sion on Ra dio log i cal 

Pro tec tion. The ICRP, re spon si ble for rec om - 

mend ing global ra di a tion-pol lu tion 

protections stan dards (which are then adopted 

by in di vid ual na tions), is sued its first-ever en - 

vi ron men tal-pro tec tion rec om men da tions 

(ICRP, 2003). Be fore 2003, there were no ra - 

dio log i cal pro tec tion stan dards for hu mans. 

De spite the need for en vi ron men tal pro tec - 

tion against radionuclides, the ICRP sci en tific 

rec om men da tions are flawed. (1) They omit all 

ra dio log i cal pro tec tion of the abiotic en vi ron - 

ment, such as air and wa ter. (2) They take an 

in com plete, reductionist ap proach to eco log i - 

cal risk as sess ment by ig nor ing all eco sys temlevel 

struc tures and func tions and in stead ad - 

dress ing risks only to a few ref er ence spe cies. 


68

(3) They fo cus only on mod eled, not mea - 

sured, doses to these ref er ence or gan isms. (4) 

They de fine “ref er ence spe cies” in terms of no 

op er a tional sci en tific cri te ria but in stead char - 

ac ter ize them prag mat i cally as those spe cies 

cho sen be cause the an a lysts know the most 

about them. (5) They make no rec om men da - 

tions to op ti mize ra dio log i cal pro tec tion of the 

en vi ron ment and keep ex po sure ALARA (as 

low as rea son ably achiev able), al though op ti - 

mi za tion and ALARA are part of ICRP norms 

for pro tec tion of hu mans (ICRP, 1991). 

In omit ting abiotic pro tec tion, the ICRP 

errs be cause it ig nores what is most eas ily, re li - 

ably, and em pir i cally mea sured, air and wa ter, 

and what is the “early-warn ing sig nal” for high 

spe cies doses. The omis sion of eco sys temlevel 

risks is prob lem atic be cause state-of-theart 

eco log i cal risk as sess ment (ERA) in cludes 

two dif fer ent lev els of meth ods, the tox i co log i - 

cal and the sys tems level. And the re quire ment 

of mod eled, not mea sured doses to ref er ences 

spe cies is sci en tif i cally flawed be cause model 

re sults would be al most to tally de pend ent on 

ex trap o la tions cho sen by the mod eler. There 

are no em pir i cal checks and bal ances; no rep li - 

ca tion of re sults; and no es cape from sub jec - 

tive, nonempirical mod els be cause es ti mates 

will be only those the mod eler judges “likely” 

(ICRP, 2003, par. 119), not those based on ex - 

plicit con fi dence lev els, with sta tis ti cally mea - 

sur able un cer tainty bounds. 

Fourth, the ICRP’s bas ing all its en vi ron - 

men tal protections on doses to some ar bi trarily 

cho sen “ref er ence spe cies” is sci en tif i cally in - 

de fen si ble be cause the ICRP gives no sci en - 

tific def i ni tion of “ref er ence spe cies”; they are 

sim ply those about which mod el ers have the 

most in for ma tion. In us ing ref er ence spe cies, 

the ICRP ar gu ably sanc tions sci ence that 

amounts to the drunk look ing for his watch un - 

der the street light. Why does the drunk look 

for his watch un der the street light? Not be - 

cause he lost his watch there, but be cause that 

is the only place he can see. Why does the 

ICRP sanc tion use of ref er ence spe cies? Not 

be cause they are spe cies that are im por tant for 

ra di a tion pro tec tion, but be cause they are spe - 

cies about which we know some thing. The 

“ref er ence spe cies” con cept also is sci en tif i - 

cally flawed be cause it has no con nec tion 

what so ever to “sen ti nel,” “av er age,” “key - 

stone,” “fo cal,” “um brella,” or “most sen si - 

tive” spe cies. Given no re li able bi o log i cal sur - 

vey of all ma jor flora and fauna, given no 

con trolled radiobiological ex per i ments on dif - 

fer ent spe cies with vastly dif fer ent 

radiosensitivities, given space-and-time 

bound ing prob lems such as mi gra tion, and 

given ra di a tion-dose val ues in the lit er a ture 

rang ing over or ders of mag ni tude, there is no 

way syn er gis tic, cu mu la tive, and in di rect ef - 

fects can be com bined into a re li able es ti mate 

of dose (Moeller, 1997, 28). 

Ob vi ously the ICRP rec om men da tions are 

sci en tif i cally flawed, but is there also an eth ics 

prob lem? There is a rep re sen ta tive ness bias, 

be cause all mem bers of the com mit tee were 

cho sen, not by bi ol o gists, but by those re spon - 

si ble for ra di a tion pro tec tion; be cause vir tu - 

ally all mem bers of the com mit tee had done re - 

search only on tox i co log i cal, not eco sys tem, 

ERA; and be cause vir tu ally all mem bers had 

al ready writ ten ar ti cles, usu ally for their nu - 

clear-in dus try em ploy ers, in sup port of mod - 

eled, rather than mea sured dose. There also 

were vi o la tions of pro ce dural jus tice, be cause 

the pro-nu clear chair of the com mit tee, from 

Swe den, al lowed no votes from the five com - 

mit tee-mem ber sci en tists (one each from Can - 

ada, Nor way, Rus sia, the UK, and the US). I 

was the US mem ber. 

When the US mem ber re quested bas ing all 

rec om men da tions on the best sci ence avail - 

able, from top ref er eed jour nals, the chair in - 

stead de fended us ing mainly nonrefereed 

“gray” lit er a ture. And when the US com mit tee 

mem ber asked the com mit tee to re quire un cer - 

tainty anal y sis of es ti mated doses, the chair 

sim ply re moved (from the re port) the writ ten 

ad mis sion that no un cer tainty anal y sis was 

nec es sary. Al though the ICRP said mem bers 

of the sci en tific com mu nity would be able to 

com ment openly on the re port, it never put the 

doc u ment through peer-re view. It asked for 

com ments on the draft, posted on the ICRP 

website, but sci en tists’ com ments were nei ther 

pub lished nor posted on the website, and only 

the com mit tee chair had ac cess to them. When 

the US mem ber tried to force sci en tific ex - 

change on the draft, by pub lish ing anal y ses of 

it in sci en tific jour nals, the chair claimed pub - 

lic com ments on a mere draft re port were in ap - 

pro pri ate. But there was no other ve hi cle of 

com mu ni ca tion. Be sides, why would some one 

com ment only on the fi nal re port, since it 

could not be eas ily changed? Prior to adopt ing 

the re port, the US mem ber called for a vote on 

the doc u ment, and both the chair and the ICRP 

told her the ICRP did not vote. The draft doc u - 


69

ment, in es sen tially the same form, was pub - 

lished in 2003, one month af ter the al leged 

com ment pe riod ended. It was pub lished in a 

de lib er ately mis lead ing way, list ing all com - 

mit tee names, but with out ac knowl edg ing that 

not all mem bers had ap proved it. 

Apart from these prob lems of eth i cal pro ce - 

dure, sci en tists and phi los o phers of sci ence 

also are re spon si ble for the con se quences of 

flawed ICRP sci ence. What will hap pen when 

en vi ron men tal protections rely merely on 

mod els, not mea sure ments? On gray lit er a ture, 

not the best sci en tific jour nals? On a largely 

nontransparent mon i tor ing sys tem con trolled 

mainly by those who use and profit from nu - 

clear pol lu tion (Shrader-Frechette, 1996)? US 

nu clear weap ons cleanup will cost a tril lion 

dol lars, the same as many Vietnams; hun dreds 

of re ac tors must be ex pen sively de com mis - 

sioned through out the world; and mil lions of 

nu clear work ers and atomic vet er ans are 

loudly de mand ing com pen sa tion. It will be 

cheaper for gov ern ment and in dus try to ad - 

dress these prob lems, if they have con trol of a 

nonempirical, nontransparent, par tial set of 

radiobiological norms. 

Both the pan ther and the ICRP cases sug - 

gest that to un der stand flawed sci ence and eth - 

ics, one of ten can “fol low the money.” They 

also sug gest that, as phi los o phers and as sci en - 

tists, we can not al ways rely on in ter na tional 

agen cies, fed eral agen cies, state agen cies, peer 

re view ers, or fel low sci en tists, ei ther to do 

good sci ence or to use sci ence in eth i cal ways. 

We our selves must help take on these du ties. 

How Not to Think about Phi los o phy of 

Sci ence and Eth ics 

At least one rea son for the eth i cally and sci - 

en tif i cally flawed ICRP rec om men da tions and 

pan ther re search may be that too much con - 

tem po rary phi los o phy of sci ence is di vorced 

from eth ics. Al though in the ory, the la bel “phi - 

los o phy of sci ence” sug gests broad philo soph - 

i cal in qui ries into sci ence, in prac tice the la bel 

is taken to mean only “epis te mol ogy of sci - 

ence.” And even when phi los o phers of sci ence 

do en gage eth i cal is sues, that eth ics amounts to 

re ar rang ing deck chairs on the Ti tanic. One 

wrong-headed ap proach, in di vid u al ism, is no 

better for sci ences such as ecol ogy than it is for 

eth ics. What most sci en tists and phi los o phers 

of sci ence em pha size (when they give their 

grad stu dents and post-docs the re quired NIH 

or NSF course in re search eth ics) is in di vid u al - 

is tic bioethics: In di vid u als should not fal sify 

data. Nor claim au thor ship when in ap pro pri - 

ate, and so on, all of which is cor rect. But by 

fix at ing on the per sonal is sues that are nec es - 

sary, they ig nore in sti tu tional is sues that are re - 

quired for good sci ence. Fo cus ing on the in di - 

vid ual trees they ig nore in sti tu tional for est of 

ethics. 

What are some of these in sti tu tional is sues? 

Ac cord ing to a Jan u ary 2001 ed i to rial in Na - 

ture, one is sue is whether the uni ver sity-in dus - 

trial com plex is “out of con trol” (Na than and 

Weatherall, 2002, 1368), as typ i fied by the 

Novartis deal with Berke ley and the Hoecht 

deal with Har vard, both of which give pat ent 

rights to in dus try do nors for work they have 

not funded (see Shrader-Frechette, 1994). An - 

other is sue is pre vent ing sit u a tions like he ma - 

tol o gist Nancy Olivieri’s be ing sued for breach 

of con tract, af ter she en tered into a re search 

con tract with a drug com pany, then blew the 

whis tle on dam ag ing side-ef fects of com pany 

med i ca tion, side-ef fects that the com pany 

tried to keep quiet (Drazen, 2002, 1362). Still 

an other is sue is why phi los o phers and sci en - 

tists nei ther keep in formed nor speak up when 

pol i ti cians sec ond-guess sci en tific con clu - 

sions, for po lit i cal rea sons, as when the Bush 

ad min is tra tion re cently dis banded doz ens of 

fed eral sci en tific ad vi sory com mit tees that 

came to sci en tific con clu sions dif fer ent from 

his own (or dif fer ent from his do nors). 

Af ter years of study, one fed eral sci en tific 

com mit tee con cluded the pub lic is at risk from 

the ge netic-test ing in dus try and worked with 

FDA to de velop reg u la tions for the in dus try 

that, so far, has been free of over sight. But in - 

dus try pro tested, so Bush did not re new the 

com mit tee’s char ter. In Latin-Americanese, he 

“dis ap peared” the com mit tee. Paul Gelsinger, 

whose son Jesse died in a Penn syl va nia genether 

apy ex per i ment com mented: “money is 

run ning the re search show.” An other sci en tific 

com mit tee, headed by Tom Burke at Johns 

Hopkins, rec om mended tighter con trols on en - 

vi ron men tal chem i cals, and Bush told him that 

he and fif teen of its eigh teen mem bers would 

be re placed, and the reg u la tions dropped. They 

were re placed, vir tu ally com pletely with 

chem i cal-in dus try lob by ists, law yer, con sul - 

tants, and CEOs, such as Den nis Paustenbach, 

who tried to de fend PG&E against Erin 

Brockovitch’s charges that it con tam i nated 

Cal i for nia com mu ni ties with chro mium 


70

(Musil, 2003). Is sci ence for sale to the high est 

bid der or cam paign do nor? Is po lit i cal sci ence 

re plac ing lab o ra tory science? 

By ig nor ing such in sti tu tional is sues of sci - 

en tific eth ics, the in vis i ble el e phant in the mid - 

dle of the lab o ra tory, and fo cus ing largely on 

in di vid ual and per sonal is sues such as au thor - 

ship, phi los o phers and sci en tists fall into the 

same in di vid u al is tic pit falls as most med i cal 

ethicists. Most jour nals deal ing with bio med i - 

cal eth ics ad dress is sues of in di vid ual doc torpa 

tient re la tion ship, like dis clo sure or in - 

formed con sent, when they also should be con - 

cerned about why the Health Track ing Act of 

2002 (HR 4061 and S 2054) has not passed, 

forc ing gov ern ment to track chronic dis eases 

and their pos si ble en vi ron men tal causes. Why 

do peo ple fo cus on in di vid ual hu man deaths 

from known causes, like the avoid able 30,000 

auto deaths each year from drunk driv ers, but 

ig nore the same num ber of deaths mostly 

among chil dren, caused by power-in dus try 

particulates (Shaeffer, 2002)? 

Minimalism, an other wrong ap proach to 

phi los o phy of sci ence and eth ics, pre sup poses 

that, if we do only epis te mol ogy of sci ence, we 

are ex haust ing the field of phi los o phy of sci - 

ence. Min i mal ist ap proaches ig nore the eth ics 

of sci ence and the fact that it ought to be part of 

phi los o phy of sci ence. Min i mal ists also as - 

sume that, if we do not lie, cheat, or steal, we 

are eth i cal. They ig nore the fact that we are all 

mem bers of fa mil ial, na tional, civic, and sci - 

en tific com mu ni ties, in whose prob lems and 

omis sions, we are all complicit. Many sci en - 

tists and phi los o phers of sci ence are min i mal - 

ists be cause they are com mu nally and 

relationally chal lenged. Yet most of us would 

not say, in re sponse to be ing called at work, af - 

ter our child was se ri ously hurt at school, “I’m 

too busy to go to the hos pi tal. I’m a sci en tist, 

and I don’t have time for those ‘out side’ ac tiv i - 

ties. I make my so cial con tri bu tion through my 

sci ence.” Just as such an an swer would be ap - 

pall ing, in re sponse to our child’s be ing hurt, it 

also is ap pall ing in re sponse to things like in ac - 

tion on Bush’s roadless rule for na tional for - 

ests. It also sounds like the at ti tude of the en tire 

Prus sian Acad emy of Sci ences, when it uni - 

ver sally con demned Al bert Ein stein in 1933, 

for crit i ciz ing Hit ler’s vi o la tions of civil lib er - 

ties. Eth ics and phi los o phy of sci ence do not 

al ways dic tate what side one should take, like 

Ein stein’s, but they do dic tate that we all have a 

moral re spon si bil ity to en gage in what Iris 

Marion Young (2000) calls “dem o cratic de lib - 

er a tion” about sci ence-re lated is sues. Peo ple 

don’t have the right to en joy the ben e fits of 

mem ber ship in the sci en tific or philo soph i cal 

com mu nity and, at the same time, to claim the 

right to be apo lit i cal when that com mu nity is 

mis rep re sented 

The Real Prob lem: Lack of Sci en tific 

Citizenship 

But if in di vid u al ism and minimalism don’t 

work, what does? I call the al ter na tive phi los o - 

phy of sci ence, “sci en tific cit i zen ship,” pub lic 

cit i zen ship for sci en tists and phi los o phers of 

sci ence. It con sists of par tic i pat ing in de lib er a - 

tive de moc racy (Young, 2000), in the ways we 

learned in eighth-grade civ ics glass: by pub lic 

speak ing, pub lic-in ter est re search, re port ing, 

sur vey ing, whistle blow ing, fil ing claims un der 

the Free dom of In for ma tion Act, boy cott ing, 

pick et ing, dem on strat ing, su ing, us ing ini tia - 

tive and ref er en dum, fund rais ing, or re spond - 

ing to one of the 2500 draft en vi ron men tal im - 

pact as sess ments writ ten each year for pub lic 

com ment (Isaacs, 1992). If a fi nan cially 

strapped, sin gle par ent like Erin Brockovitch 

has the cour age to be a sci en tific cit i zen, then 

better ed u cated sci en tists and phi los o phers 

ought to be able to do at least as much. 

Where were the Erin-Brockovitch bi ol o - 

gists when Vice Pres i dent Cheney said en ergy 

con ser va tion was a “per sonal vir tue” then tried 

to open up Alaska and arc tic wil der ness to oil 

and gas drill ing? Af ter Cheney’s com ment, the 

coun try’s five top na tional lab o ra to ries re - 

leased a re port show ing that en ergy ef fi ciency 

pro grams could im me di ately re duce elec tric - 

ity de mand by 20 to 47 per cent (Nierenberg, 

2001, 13). And where were the Erin- 

Brokovitch bi ol o gists when Sen a tors John 

McCain and John Kerry pro posed rais ing the 

CAFE (cor po rate av er age fuel econ omy) stan - 

dards grad u ally over the next 13 years 

(Huffington, 2002, 41–42)? Both Dem o cratic 

and Re pub li can Congresspeople, ben e fi cia ries 

of auto and oil-in dus try cam paign do na tions, 

voted against better CAFE stan dards, even 

though the McCain-Kerry bill would have 

saved 2.5 mil lion bar rels of oil a day 

(Huffington, 2002, 41–42). 

Sci en tific cit i zen ship is not blind ad vo cacy. 

It is keep ing in formed, shar ing in for ma tion, 

re veal ing bias, avoid ing po lit i cal naïveté, tak - 

ing part in pub lic de bate, es pe cially in ar eas re - 


71

lated to your own ar eas of ex per tise. It would 

not be in ap pro pri ate ad vo cacy to re veal the 

flawed sci ence used by pan ther sci en tists or 

the ICRP radio biologists. In most cases, sci en - 

tific cit i zen ship is noth ing more than do ing 

good sci ence and act ing as a philo soph i cal 

watch dog on those who mis use sci ence, es pe - 

cially in pol icy con texts. Most of us are crit i cal 

of the way med i cal doc tors fail to act as watch - 

dogs on the pol i cies of the AMA. But if so, we 

should be crit i cal of the way bi ol o gists fail to 

act as watch dogs on the mis use of bi ol ogy. 

What all these de mands for sci en tific cit i zen - 

ship en tail is tak ing re spon si bil ity. As Cassius 

says to Brutus in Act 1, scene 2 of Jul ius 

Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our 

stars/ But in our selves, that we are un der lings.” 

Why All Scientists and Philosophers of 

Sci ence Have Du ties to be Sci en tific Cit i - 

zens 

Why are sci en tists and phi los o phers of sci - 

ence obliged to play a pro-ac tive role in dem o - 

cratic de lib er a tion, as sci en tific cit i zens? 

There are at least five rea sons: abil ity, com - 

plic ity, con sis tency, pro fes sional codes of eth - 

ics, and self-in ter est. 

Sci en tists and phi los o phers of sci ence have 

this spe cial duty, first, be cause they are able to 

do what very few oth ers can. Spe cial abil i ties 

and spe cial knowl edge cre ate spe cial ob li ga - 

tions. 

Sci en tists and phi los o phers of sci ence also 

have spe cial du ties be cause they are complicit 

in many harms done by sci ence. We all know 

about this com plic ity in med i cal con texts. 

Most man u fac turer-funded sci en tific stud ies 

on pharmaceuticals claim ef fi cacy su pe rior to 

other prod ucts, but in at least half the cases, the 

sta tis tics are miss ing or in con clu sive, yet peerre 

viewed jour nals pub lish them any way 

(Rochon et al., 1994). Jour nals did the same in 

the pan ther case. One way to com pen sate for 

our known and un known fail ures is to make an 

ef fort to be have proactively, as sci en tific cit i - 

zens. 

Third, con sis tency fur ther dic tates du ties to 

be sci en tific cit i zens. It is ir ra tio nal to train stu - 

dents to do sci ence and phi los o phy of sci ence 

and not to train them to mon i tor the dem o cratic 

con di tions nec es sary for good sci ence. To seek 

the end, good sci ence, and not pur sue the 

means, whistle blow ing and watchdogging, 

nec es sary to achieve it, is ir ra tio nal. Na ive 

peo ple thought pass ing the1964 Civil Rights 

Act would end rac ism, be cause they ig nored 

the role we all must play, de facto, to en sure 

that the de jure law works. Yet we ig nore the de 

facto work nec es sary to re al ize the de jure dic - 

tates of the Na tional En vi ron men tal Pol icy Act 

(NEPA). Pro vid ing com ments on draft as sess - 

ments is nec es sary for the de jure NEPA to 

work. Our act ing as ad vo cates for good en vi - 

ron men tal as sess ment is nec es sary for NEPA 

to work. 

Fourth, sci en tists have du ties to be sci en - 

tific cit i zens be cause their pro fes sional codes 

of eth ics re quire just that. The code (re vised 22 

March 2002) of the Amer i can In sti tute of Bi o - 

log i cal Sci ences (AIBS), for ex am ple, re quires 

bi ol o gists to ex pose fraud, pro fes sional mis - 

con duct, con flicts of in ter est and to pro mote 

open ex change, among other things. If par ties 

to the ICRP and Florida-pan ther re search had 

fol lowed these rules, many prob lems could 

have been avoided. 

A fi nal rea son for du ties to be have as sci en - 

tific spokespersons is self in ter est. If sci en tists 

and phi los o phers of sci ence do not be have as 

sci en tific cit i zens, then peo ple will be less well 

ed u cated about sci ence. As a re sult, sci ence 

will re ceive less fund ing, and the pro fes sion 

will do less well. 

Re claim ing Sci en tific Re search and Teach - 

ing 

If we take sci en tific cit i zen ship se ri ously, 

then we shall have to re claim sci en tific and 

philo soph i cal re search and teach ing. That rec - 

la ma tion will need to start with the rec og ni tion 

that al though both sci ence and phi los o phy, 

with care, can be ob jec tive, they are also, as 

Philip Kitcher put it, un avoid ably so cial. But if 

so, sci en tists and phi los o phers of sci ence must 

learn to prac tice what Kitcher (2001) calls 

“well-or dered sci ence,” sci ence sub ject to in - 

formed, plu ral is tic, dem o cratic con straints. 

Well-or dered sci ence re quires re search ers and 

ed u ca tors to look out for ways that vested in - 

ter ests tilt the sci en tific play ing field. It is not 

level, if the only fac tor as so ci ated with con - 

clud ing that pas sive smok ing is not harm ful is 

whether an au thor is af fil i ated with the to bacco 

in dus try, even when one uses mul ti ple lo gis tic 

re gres sion anal y ses con trol ling for ar ti cle 

qual ity, peer re view sta tus, topic, year, and so 

on (Barnes and Bero, 1998). The play ing field 

is not level, if a poorly-paid fed eral em ployee 


72

is pit ted against util ity-in dus try at tor neys each 

of whom re cently charged $5,000 per hour, for 

at tempts to have the Clean Air Act de clared 

un con sti tu tional (Moore, 2002, 58). 

One way to help level the play ing field is to 

ex pose al leged re search ers who are merely 

well-funded “front groups.” The Amer i can 

Chem is try Coun cil is not that but an anti-reg u - 

la tory group spend ing more than $4 mil lion a 

year in lob by ing and sci en tific writ ing. The 

Amer i can Crop Pro tec tion As so ci a tion is a 

group of pes ti cide man u fac tur ers fund ing 

writ ing and lob by ing to block EPA’s reg u la tion 

of pes ti cides. The Global Cli mate Co ali tion, 

like the Ad vance ment of Sound Sci ence Co ali - 

tion, is a front group funded by the oil, au to mo - 

bile, chem i cal, and to bacco in dus try to op pose 

sign ing the Kyoto Ac cords (Beder, 2002, 237). 

The Na tional En dan gered Spe cies Act Re form 

Co ali tion is funded by the util ity in dus try to 

lobby against the En dan gered Spe cies Act. Re - 

spon si ble In dus try for a Sound En vi ron ment is 

a pes ti cide-in dus try-funded group writ ing to 

dis credit right-to-know pro vi sions in pes ti cide 

reg u la tions (Beder, 2002). The For est Pro tec - 

tion So ci ety is funded by the log ging in dus try 

to pro mote rain forest log ging (Beder, 2002, 

31). The Keep Amer ica Beau ti ful group is 

funded by the bot tling and plas tics in dus try to 

op pose bot tle-de posit leg is la tion (Beder, 

2002, 30). The Na tional Wetlands Co ali tion, 

funded by the oil and gas in dus try, has a logo 

that shows a duck fly ing over a wet land, but it 

lob bies and writes in fa vor of wetlands oil and 

gas drill ing (Beder, 2002, 30). The Amer i can 

Coun cil on Sci ence and Health, funded by the 

chem i cal, oil, and phar ma ceu ti cal in dus tries, 

com mis sions ar ti cles ar gu ing for the nu tri - 

tional value of fast food, the safety of growth 

hor mones for cat tle, and the safety of sac cha - 

rin and pes ti cides (Beder, 2002, 28). 

We all know that Dick Cheney met re peat - 

edly with en ergy-in dus try of fi cials to for mu - 

late the ad min is tra tion’s en ergy pol icy, but 

many don’t re al ize that he is still be ing paid de - 

ferred com pen sa tion by Halliburton. Or that 

Steve Griles, coal, gas, and oil in dus try lob by - 

ist, as cur rent Dep uty Sec re tary of the In te rior, 

con tin ues to be paid nearly $300,000 a year by 

his for mer lob by ing firm, even though he is 

now sup pos edly work ing for ev ery one. Griles 

wrote the pro posal al low ing the coal in dus try 

to dump min ing waste in streams in stead of 

clean ing it up (Hertsgaard, 2003, 15–16). Gale 

Norton, cofounder of an anti-reg u la tory chem - 

i cal and min ing in dus try lobby group, is now 

US Sec re tary of the In te rior; Dick Cheney, 

Chair of Halliburton, an oil-ser vices com pany, 

is now US Vice-Pres i dent; James 

Connaughton, lob by ist for min ing and chem i - 

cals in dus tries, is now Chair of the White 

House Coun cil on En vi ron men tal Qual ity; 

Don Ev ans, CEO of an oil and gas com pany, is 

now US Sec re tary of Com merce; An drew 

Card, auto in dus try lob by ist, is now White 

House Chief of Staff; Ann Veneman, mem ber 

of the board of di rec tors for biotech com pany 

Calgene, is now US Sec re tary of Ag ri cul ture 

(Slat er, 2002, 39). Monsanto lob by ist, Linda 

Fisher, is dep uty di rec tor of the US EPA. Tim - 

ber-in dus try lob by ist, Mark Rey, is US Under - 

sec re tary of Ag ri cul ture. Coal-in dus try lob by - 

ist, Tom Sansonetti, is US As sis tant At tor ney 

Gen eral for En vi ron ment and Re sources. Timber-in 

dus try and min ing-in dus try law yer, 

Rebecca Wat son, is US As sis tant Sec re tary of 

the In te rior. Auto-in dus try lob by ist, Cam den 

Toohey, is Spe cial As sis tant for Alaska, US 

De part ment of the In te rior. GE VP, Fran cis 

Blake, is US Dep uty Sec re tary of En ergy. En - 

ergy-in dus try lob by ist, Deborah Daniels, is 

US As sis tant At tor ney Gen eral. Chem i cal-in - 

dus try law yer, Jeffrey Holmstead, is US EPA 

As sis tant Ad min is tra tor (Slat er, 2002, 41). 

All these ap point ments—and Bush’s 

“Clear Skies” air-pol lu tion plan that al lows 

three times more mer cury emis sions and 50 

per cent more sul fur di ox ide emis sions than 

cur rent law al lows (Slat er, 2002, 42)—help 

show the need for sci en tific cit i zen ship. These 

con flicts of in ter est may be ex pli ca ble, once 

one un der stands that the oil, min ing, tim ber, 

chem i cal, and elec tric util ity in dus tries to - 

gether gave US Pres i dent Bush $44 mil lion in 

his 2000 Pres i den tial cam paign (Hertsgaard, 

2003, 15–16). And the ap point ments may ex - 

plain why Bush re as signed 40 per cent of the 

EPA staff that en forces crim i nal vi o la tions of 

en vi ron men tal law to non-en vi ron men tal 

work. Or why he an nu ally re fers 80 per cent 

fewer crim i nal vi o la tions un der the Toxic Sub - 

stances Con trol Act than Clinton did. Or why 

EPA ad min is tra tor Chris tie Whit man halved 

the num ber of Superfund sites sched uled for 

cleanup, then shifted the worst costs of 

cleanup from the in dus tries re spon si ble to the 

tax pay ers (Slat er, 2002, 43). If only one rel a - 

tively small oil com pany, Oc ci den tal, spends 

$2 mil lion a year on lob by ing, with 81 per cent 

tar geted for the GOP (Ota, 2002), then what 


73

must the to tal amount be for all oil com pa nies, 

in deed, all com pa nies? 

Ideo log i cal and ig no rant en vi ron men tal ists, 

of course, also get their sci ence wrong, and Er - 

nest Sternglass’ mis use of sta tis tics, in ar gu ing 

against nu clear power, is a case in point. But 

they typ i cally do not have the mil lions of dol - 

lars to get their flawed mes sages across. That is 

why the bias of cor po rate groups tends, by 

com par i son, to be more mas sive. Would you 

like to head the pan ther re cov ery pro ject for 

about $22,000 a year, and have Jeb Bush over - 

see ing your re ject ing de vel op ers’ per mits? 

When BLM Montana di rec tor Mar tha Hahn 

re duced cat tle graz ing on some eco log i cally 

frag ile fed eral land, and when BLM Desert Di - 

rec tor Tim Salt pro tected en dan gered spe cies 

on BLM desert lands in Cal i for nia, the Bush 

ad min is tra tion re as signed and de moted both. 

When man ager of Utah’s Escalante Na tional 

Mon u ment, Kate Can non, cut back on cat tle 

graz ing to pro tect the hab i tat, she was de moted 

and re as signed to a dep uty post at Grand Can - 

yon. When head of the For est Ser vice’s Pa cific 

South west Re gion, Brad Powell, ap proved a 

plan to limit log ging, graz ing, of off-road ve hi - 

cle use in the Si erra Ne vada Na tional For est, he 

was de moted and re as signed to Missoula, 

Montana. When EPA om buds man Rob ert 

Mar tin tried to en force the Superfund Law, he 

was re as signed and de moted, and is now su ing 

(Slat er 2002, 40). When Dr. Rob ert Wat son, an 

at mo spheric sci en tist who chaired a pres ti - 

gious in ter na tional panel as sess ing cli mate 

change, pushed to limit emis sions, the White 

House had him re placed, as leader, with an 

econ o mist (Slat er 2002, 42). Not to rec og nize 

the way po lit i cal sci ence can con trol sci ence, 

and phi los o phy of sci ence, is naive. 

Most sci en tists know enough to warn their 

stu dents about al leged sci en tific in for ma tion 

pub lished by those who do not be lieve in evo - 

lu tion. Yet they are less wary of other ma te rial, 

such as Ecoscam (1994), pub lished by St Mar - 

tin’s Press, whose au thor was paid by the cor - 

po rate-funded Com pet i tive En ter prise In sti - 

tute to write it. The cor po rate-funded Cato 

In sti tute, for ex am ple, ex plic itly pays sci en - 

tists to dis credit uni ver sity-funded sci en tific 

re search that chal lenges the safety of food ad - 

di tives, en vi ron men tal car cin o gens, pes ti - 

cides, paints, and sol vents (Moore, 2002, 58). 

More over, of the four most-cited think tanks, 

which in clude Cato, Her i tage, and Amer i can 

En ter prise In sti tute, stu dents need to know that 

none is typ i cally iden ti fied as in dus try-sup - 

ported, when their “hire ed u ca tion” ar ti cles 

ap pear in news pa pers and mag a zines (Moore, 

2002, 58). If we would not teach sci ence with - 

out a lab or field work, and if we would not 

teach phi los o phy of sci ence with out case stud - 

ies, then we ought teach nei ther with out also 

teach ing stu dents to pro tect and en cour age 

what is nec es sary to have sci ence in a de moc - 

racy. Ex pect ing to do good sci ence and phi los - 

o phy-of-sci ence ed u ca tion, but ig nor ing how 

to do sci ence in a de moc racy, is like ex pect ing 

to run good ex per i ments, but not feed ing the 

lab an i mals. 

One way to teach and do re search as sci en - 

tific cit i zens is to do more than merely au top - 

sies on dead sci en tific the o ries. Phi los o phers 

of sci ence and sci en tists also can do vivi sec - 

tion on ex ist ing the o ries. They can send fed eral 

agen cies com ments on one of the 2500 draft 

im pact as sess ments (EIAs) com pleted each 

year, un der NEPA. They can write sci ence-re - 

lated op ed pieces for lo cal news pa pers. They 

can re view sci ence-re lated books for the pop u - 

lar me dia. Along with help ing stu dents read 

crit i cally and use only the best ref er eed jour - 

nals, sci en tists and phi los o phers who are sci - 

en tific cit i zens might: 

Make one as sign ment re quir ing as sess ment 

of some sci ence-re lated leg is la tion be fore 

Con gress and have stu dents write 

congresspeople about it. 

Teach a pro ject-based EIA course where 

each stu dent cri tiques a cho sen EIA. 

Be gin class with five min utes of ex pos ing 

sci en tific “hire ed u ca tion,” such as bi ased 

think tanks. 

Have stu dents turn in syn op ses of New York 

Times sci ence ar ti cles for each class. 

Give stu dents ex tra credit for read ing and 

re port ing on non fic tion by sci en tists like Paul 

Ehrlich, Rich ard Feynman, or Devra Da vis. 

Give stu dents ex tra-credit for work with 

nongovernmental or ga ni za tions (NGOs), such 

as the Na tional Wild life As so ci a tion. 

Use Kath er ine Isaacs’ 1992 Civ ics for De - 

moc racy, to show stu dents how to use their sci - 

en tific and philo soph i cal ed u ca tion in daily 

life. 

Conclusion 

If we can not count on pol i ti cians, leg is la - 

tors, cor po ra tions, NGOs, and courts to 

achieve bal ance and ob jec tiv ity in do ing, re - 


74

port ing, and us ing sci ence, then those who 

know sci ence, and phi los o phy of sci ence, must 

do so. Such sci en tific cit i zen ship is dif fi cult 

only be cause so few peo ple take it on. Ralph 

Nader (“Fore word,” in Isaacs, 1992, vi) de - 

fined a real de moc racy as “a so ci ety where less 

and less cour age and risk are needed of more 

and more peo ple to spread jus tice.” An his to - 

rian noted that only about sev en teen per cent of 

the co lo nial pop u la tion sup ported the US rev o - 

lu tion against the Brit ish; mem bers of the mer - 

chant and in dus try class did not sup port it, be - 

cause they feared a dis rup tion of their prof its 

(Gromyko and Hellman, 1988). Yet the rev o lu - 

tion suc ceeded mainly be cause that sev en teen 

per cent were com mit ted. Thomas Jef fer son 

did not say it was too dif fi cult when he con trib - 

uted all his farm wag ons to the war ef fort, for 

haul ing sol diers and sup plies. Rev o lu tion ary 

sol diers did not say it was too dif fi cult when 

they re ceived no pay, had no uni forms, and 

some times had no shoes. In a de moc racy, we 

the peo ple are the only ones who can do the 

work of de moc racy. 

REFERENCES 

Agripartners. (2001) “Mo tion of Intervenor 

Agripartners,” National Wildlife Federation (NWF), et 

al., v. Louis Cal dera, Civil Ac tion No. 1:00 CV 01031 

(JR). 

Barnes, Deborah, and Lisa Bero. (1998) “Why Re view 

Ar ti cles on the Health Ef fects of Pas sive Smok ing 

Reach Different Conclusions,” Jour nal of the Amer i can 

Med i cal As so ci a tion 279: 1566–70. 

Beder, Sharon. (2002) Global Spin. New York: Ba sic 

Books. 

Comiskey, Jane, Oron Bass, Louis Gross, Roy McBride, 

and Renee Sa linas. (2002) “Pan thers and For ests in 

South Florida: An Eco log i cal Per spec tive,” Con ser va - 

tion Ecol ogy 6: 18–40; on line at www.consecol.org/ 

vol6/iss1/art18. 

Crick, Fran cis. (1988) What Mad Pur suit. New York: Ba - 

sic Books. 

Da vis, Devra. (2002) When Smoke Ran Like Water. New 

York: Ba sic Books. 

Dees, Catherine, Jo seph Clark, and Frank Manen. (2001) 

“Florida Pan ther Hab i tat Use in Re sponse to Pre scribed 

Fire,” Jour nal of Wild life Management 65: 141–47. 

Dick son, Brett and Paul Beier. (2002) “Home Range and 

Hab i tat Se lec tion by Adult Cou gars in South ern Cal i - 

for nia,” Jour nal of Wild life Man age ment 66: 1235–45. 

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman. (1947) The Everglades: 

River of Grass. New York: Rinehart. 

Drazen, Jeffrey. (2002) “In sti tu tions, Con tracts, and Ac a - 

demic Free dom,” New Eng land Jour nal of Med i cine 

347: 1362–63. 

Florida Pan ther Work ing Group (FPWG). (2000) Meet - 

ing min utes, Lake Placid, 

Fl, Archbold Bi o log i cal Sta tion. US Fish and Wild life 

Ser vice (US FWS). 

Gromyko, Anatoly, and Mar tin Hellman, eds. (1988) 

Break through: Emerg ing New Think ing. New York: 

Walker. 

Ha vens, Kirk, and Ed ward Sharp. (1998) “Us ing Ther mal 

Im ag ery in the Ae rial Sur vey of An i mals,” Wildlife Soci - 

ety Bulletin 26: 17–23. 

Hertsgaard, Mark. (2003) “Trash ing the En - 

vi ron ment,” The Na tion 276: 15–19. 

Huffington, Arianna. (2002) “What Are They Think ing 

in Wash ing ton,” Si erra 87: 38–43. 

In ter na tional Com mis sion on Ra dio log i cal Pro tec tion 

(ICRP). (1991) Rec om men da tions. ICRP pub li ca tion 

60. Ox ford: Pergamon. 

In ter na tional Com mis sion on Ra dio log i cal Pro tec tion 

(ICRP). (2003) A Frame work for As sess ing the Im pact 

of Ionising Radiation on Non-Human Species. Reference 

02-305-02. Vi enna: ICRP. 

Isaacs, Kath er ine. (1992) Civ ics for De moc racy. Wash - 

ing ton, DC: Es sen tial Books. 

Kautz, Randy, and Rob ert Kawula. (2000) Florida Pan - 

ther Potential Habitat and Landscape Linkage Modeling. 

Tal la has see, FL: Florida Fish and Wild life 

Con ser va tion Com mis sion. 



Kostyack, John. (2002) “Let ter to Col o nel James G. May, 

US Army Corps of En gi neers, Jack son ville, Florida and 

Jay Slack, US FWS, Vero Beach, Florida,” Na tional 

Wildlife Federation (June 7): 1–12. 


75

Land, E. Darrell, and Rob ert Lacy. (2000) “Introgression 

Level Achieved through Florida Pan ther Ge netic Res to - 

ra tion,” En dan gered Spe cies Up date 17: 99–103. 

Land, E. Darrell, Mark Cunningham, Roy McBride, Da - 

vid Shindle, and Mark Lotz. (2002) Florida Pan ther 

Ge netic Res to ra tion, 2001–2002 An nual Re port, Tal la - 

has see, FL: Florida Fish and Wild life Con ser va tion 

Commission. 

Maehr, Da vid. (2001) Dec la ra tion of Opin ion Re gard ing 

Florida Pan ther Lit i ga tion Re Landon Com pa nies/ 

Agripartners—National Wildlife Federation et al. V. 

Cal dera et al., case No. 1:00CV01031 (D.D.C. Judge 

Rob ert son). 

Maehr, Da vid. (1997) The Florida Pan ther. Covelo, CA: 

Island Press. 

Maehr, Da vid, and Gerard Caddick. (1995) “De mo graph - 

ics and Ge netic Introgression in the Florida Pan ther,” 

Con ser va tion Bi ol ogy 9: 1295–98. 

Maehr, Da vid, and J.A. Cox. (1995) “Land scape Fea tures 

and Pan thers in South Florida,” Con ser va tion Bi ol ogy 9: 

1008–19. 

Maehr, Da vid, and Jon a than Deason. (2002) “Wide-rang- 

ing Car ni vores and De vel op ment Per mits,” Clean Tech - 

nol o gies and En vi ron men tal Pol icy 3: 398–406. 

Maehr, Da vid, and Rob ert Lacy. (2002) “Avoid ing the 

Lurk ing Pit falls in Florida Pan ther Re cov ery,” Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 30: 971–78. 

Maehr, Da vid, E. Darrell Land, Da vid Shindle, Oron 

Bass, and Thomas Hoctor. (2002a) “Florida Pan ther 

Dispersal and Conservation,” Biological Conservation 

106: 187–97. 

Maehr, Da vid, Rob ert Lacy, E. Darrell Land, Oron Bass, 

and Thomas Hoctor. (2002b) “Pop u la tion Vi a bil ity of 

the Florida Pan ther: A Multi-per spec tive Ap proach,” in 

S. Beissinger, and D. McCullough eds. Pop u la tion Vi a - 

bility Analysis. Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press, 

200), 284–311. 

McBride, Roy. (2001) “Cur rent Pan ther Dis tri bu tion, 

Pop u la tion Trends, and Hab i tat Use Re port of Field 

Work: Fall 2000–Win ter 2001,” Vero Beach, FL: 

Florida Pan ther Subteam of MERIT, US Fish and Wild - 

life Ser vice, South Florida Eco sys tem Of fice. 

McBride, Roy. (2002) “Florida Pan ther Cur rent Ver i fied 

Pop u la tion, Dis tri bu tion, and High lights of Field Work: 

Fall 2001–Win ter 2002,” Vero Beach, FL: Florida Pan - 

ther Subteam of MERIT, US Fish and Wild life Ser vice, 

South Florida Eco sys tem Of fice. 

Moeller, Dade. (1997) En vi ron men tal Health. Cam - 

bridge, MA: Har vard Uni ver sity Press. 

Moore, Curtis. (2002) “Re think ing the Think Tanks,” Si - 

erra 87: 56–59, 73. 

Musil, R. (2003) “Po lit i cal Sci ence on Fed eral Ad vi sory 

Panels,” Physicians for Social Responsibility Reports 

24/25: 3. 

Na than, Da vid, and Da vid Weatherall. (2002) “Ac a demic 

Freedom in Clinical Research,” New Eng land Jour nal 

of Med i cine 347: 1368–70. 

Ota, Alan. (2002) “Oc ci den tal Pe tro leum Lob bies for 

Ben e fits,” CQ Weekly 60: 660. 

Na tional Wild life Fed er a tion (NWF). (2002) Road to 

Ruin: How the US Gov ern ment is Per mit ting the De - 

struc tion of the West ern Everglades. Wash ing ton, DC: 

Na tional Wild life Fed er a tion. 

Na tional Wild life Fed er a tion (NWF), et al., Plain tiffs v. 

Louis Cal dera, et al, De fen dants. (2001) Civil Ac tion 

No. 1:00 CV 01031 (JR), later changed to NWF et al, 

Plain tiffs, v. Thomas White, et al, De fen dants, 2001, 

Case: 00CV01031 (JR). Also, Na tional Wild life Fed er - 

a tion (NWF), 1998, Law suit against the Daniels Park - 

way ex ten sion; avail able at www.eswr.com/ 

panthnwreply.pdf 

Nierenberg, Danielle. (2001) “US En vi ron men tal Pol - 

icy,” World Watch, 12–21. 

O’Brien, Ste phen, Mel ody Roelke, N. Yuhki, K. Rich - 

ards, W. John son, W. Frank lin, A. An der son, Oron Bass, 

Rob ert Belden, and Janice Martenson. (1990) “Ge netic 

Introgression within the Florida Pan ther Felis concolor 

coryi,” Na tional Geo graph ical Re search 6: 485–94. 

Rochon, Paula, Jerry Gurwitz, Rob ert Simms, Paul 

Fortin, Da vid Felson, Ken neth Minaker, and Thomas 

Chalmers. (1994) “A Study of Man u fac turer-sup ported 

Tri als of Nonsteroidal Anti-in flam ma tory Drugs in the 

Treatment of Arthritis,” Ar chives of In ter nal Med i cine 

157: 157–63. 

Roelke, Mel ody, Janice Martenson, and Ste phen 

O’Brien. (1993) “The Con se quences of De mo graphic 

Re duc tion and Ge netic De ple tion in the En dan gered 

Florida Pan ther: Cur rent Bi ol ogy and Ge netic 

Introgression within the Florida Pan ther,” Cur rent Bi ol - 

ogy, 340. 

Shaeffer, E. (2002) “Power Plants and Pub lic Health,” 

Phy si cians for So cial Re spon si bil ity Re ports 34: 3. 

Seal, US, and Rob ert Lacy (Con ser va tion Breed ing Spe - 

cial ist Group, Spe cies Sur vival Com mis sion, IUCN). 


76

(1989) “Florida Pan ther Vi a bil ity Anal y sis and Spe cies 

Sur vival Plan,” Re port to the US Fish and Wild life Ser - 

vice, Ap ple Val ley, Min ne sota. 

Shrader-Frechette, Kristen, and Earl Mc Coy. (1993) 

Method in Ecol ogy. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Uni ver sity 

Press. 

Shrader-Frechette, Kristen. (1994) Eth ics of Sci en tific 

Re search. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 

Shrader-Frechette, Kristen. (1996) “Sci ence Ver sus Ed u - 

cated Guess ing,” Bio Sci ence 46: 488–89. 

Slack, Jay (Field Su per vi sor, South Florida Eco log i cal 

Ser vices Of fice, US Fish and Wild life Ser vice). (2001) 

“Let ter to Kris Thoemke,” Everglades Pro ject Man ager, 

Na tional Wild life Fed er a tion, and Nancy Anne Payton, 

SW FL Field Rep re sen ta tive, Florida Wild life Fed er a - 

tion (June 12). 

Slack, Jay (Field Su per vi sor, South Florida Eco log i cal 

Ser vices Of fice, Vero Beach, Fl, US Fish and Wild life 

Ser vice). (2002) “Let ter to Col o nel James G. May,” US 

Army Corps of En gi neers, Jack son ville, Florida, Bi o - 

log i cal Opin ion for the pro posed Fort Myers Mine # 2 in 

Lee county, Florida (Jan u ary 30). 

Slat er, Dashka. (2002) “The Big Book of Bush,” Si erra 

87: 37–47. 

Thoemke, K (Everglades Pro ject Man ager, Na tional 

Wild life Fed er a tion) ad Payton, NA (SW FL Field Rep - 

re sen ta tive, Florida Wild life Fed er a tion). (2001) “Let ter 

to James J. Slack,” Field Su per vi sor, South Florida Eco - 

log i cal Ser vices Of fice, US Fish and Wild life Ser vice 

(May 7). 

Young, Iris Marion. (2000) Inclusion and De moc racy. 



77

TOWARD A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 

Ambrosio Velasco Gómez 

Sci ence is com monly con ceived as a sys tem 

of prop o si tions tested and jus ti fied through 

rig or ous meth ods, that seeks to achieve 

epistemic val ues such as ob jec tiv ity, co her - 

ence, pre ci sion, sys tem ati za tion, gen er al iza - 

tion, ex plan a tory and pre dic tive force. Even 

less or tho dox au thors, like Thomas Kuhn who 

fo cuses not only on sci ence as prod uct but also 

as an spe cific kind of so cial prac tice, only 

takes into ac count epistemic val ues, and leaves 

aside moral, so cial and po lit i cal con sid er - 

ations. From this point of view, sci ence is mor - 

ally and po lit i cally neu tral. More re cently 

some phi los o phers like Javier Echeverría 

(2002) and León Olivé (2000) have pointed 

out the rel e vance of non- epistemic val ues to 

un der stand the de vel op ment of sci ence and 

tech nol ogy. How ever, from Karl Pop per to 

Larry Laudan, most phi los o phers of sci ence 

con sider that in tro duc ing so cial or po lit i cal 

dis cus sions in the con text of jus ti fi ca tion of 

sci en tific the o ries rep re sents a se ri ous threat to 

the ra tio nal ity of sci ence. Those au thors like 

Paul Feyerabend and Michel Foucault, who 

point out the in trin sic re la tion ship be tween 

sci en tific truth and po lit i cal power, are con - 

demned as ir ra tio nal postmodernists. 

For tu nately dur ing the last de cades the so - 

cial, moral and po lit i cal di men sions of sci ence 

have caught the at ten tion of phi los o phers, so - 

ci ol o gists and his to ri ans of sci ences in the 

scope of Sci ence and Tech nol ogy Stud ies 

(STS) (Fuller, 1993; Pickering, 1992; Mit - 

cham, 1995; Ibarra and López Cerezo, 2003). 

But this new and in creas ingly in no va tive dis ci - 

pline, al though it chal lenges many pre sup po si - 

tions of stan dard phi los o phy of sci ence 

(mainly log i cal em pir i cism), deals more with 

the in ter ac tion of sci ence and tech nol ogy in 

ap plied con texts (techno sci ence) rather than 

with the in trin sic prob lems of jus ti fi ca tion of 

sci en tific the o ries. 

My main pur pose here is to ar gue that it is 

nec es sary to con sider moral and po lit i cal ques - 

tions in the core of epistemological and meth - 

od olog i cal prob lems of sci en tific the o ries that 

are typ i cally dis cussed in tra di tional phi los o - 

phy of sci ence. Ac cord ingly, the first part of 

my ar gu ment re lies on two im por tant phi los o - 

phers of sci ence of the be gin ning of the twen ti - 

eth cen tury: Pi erre Duhem and Otto Neurath. 

Both crit i cized the wide spread idea that the ra - 

tio nal ity and ob jec tiv ity of sci ence is ex clu - 

sively based on a rig or ous meth od ol ogy, and 

both in tro duced moral, so cial and po lit i cal 

con sid er ations to clar ify the na ture of sci en - 

tific ra tio nal ity. Un for tu nately these im por tant 

in sights of the found ing fa thers of the twen ti - 

eth cen tury phi los o phy of sci ence have not 

been re cov ered and ac knowl edged by most of 

their philo soph i cal heirs. 

Af ter clar i fy ing some im por tant moral, so - 

cial, and po lit i cal as pects of sci en tific ra tio nal - 

ity, the sec ond part of ar gu ment uses the prag - 

matic view of sci en tific ra tio nal ity to 

chal lenge the meth od olog i cal and ex clu sively 

epistemic con cept of ra tio nal ity that orig i nated 

with Plato and be came the dom i nant view in 

mod ern phi los o phy through the work of René 

Des cartes, Fran cis Ba con, and Thomas 

Hobbes. I also dis cuss the po lit i cal con se - 

quences of meth od olog i cal and epistemic ra - 

tio nal ity, taken to gether with the wide spread 

idea that po lit i cal and even eth i cal de ci sions 

must be based on sci en tific knowl edge. I main - 

tain that these two the ses are not only false, but 

have strong au thor i tar ian im pli ca tions. 

Fi nally, the third part of my ar gu ment turns 

again to Neurath in or der to sug gest a re pub li - 

can way of re lat ing sci ence and po lit i cal de ci - 

sions, so as to pro mote so cial and po lit i cal val - 

ues, such as jus tice and de moc racy, along side 

epistemic val ues. 

Em pir i cal Underdetermination, Good 

Sense, and Aux il iary Mo tives 

In his book, The End and Struc ture of Phys - 

i cal The ory (1906), Pi erre Duhem pre sented 

one of the most im por tant is sues of con tem po - 

rary phi los o phy of sci ence: the em pir i cal 

underdetermination of the o ries. This prob lem 

was sub se quently de vel oped Wil lard Van 

Orman Quine and is com monly know as the 

Duhem–Quine the sis. The cen tral idea is that it 

is not only im pos si ble to ver ify the o ries in duc - 

tively, but also—and this is the core of the is - 

sue—that it is not pos si ble to con clu sively fal - 

sify or re fute any the ory through de duc tive 


78

ar gu ments. This the sis im plies that there is no 

method for the ver i fi ca tion or ref u ta tion of sci - 

en tific the o ries. 

Duhem of fers two kind of ar gu ments to sup - 

port his the sis against the pos si bil ity of em pir i - 

cal ref u ta tion of the o ries. The first ar gu ment 

ap peals to the the o ret i cal de pend ence of ob ser - 

va tions, that is, the truth that ev ery ob ser va tion 

or ex per i ment pre sup poses the prior ac cep - 

tance of some in ter pre ta tive the ory. Thus 

within the pro cess of em pir i cal test ing, when 

em pir i cal prop o si tions are shown to con tra dict 

a hy poth e sis, it is al ways pos si ble to ar gue that 

what is wrong is not the hy poth e sis, but the in - 

ter pre ta tion of the em pir i cal prop o si tions. 

Such an al ter na tive is log i cally valid, and in 

prin ci ple it is as rea son able to save the cen tral 

hy poth e sis as it is to save the in ter pre ta tive the - 

ory on which ob ser va tions de pend. 

Al though Pop per ac knowl edge that it is im - 

pos si ble strictly to re fute any the o ret i cal hy - 

poth e sis, be cause it is al ways pos si ble to ar gue 

that ex per i ments or ob ser va tions are not re li - 

able, he cuts off this prob lem by is su ing his 

cen tral meth od olog i cal rule that we should 

never save any hy poth e sis from ref u ta tion 

(Pop per, 1980, chap ter 2). This cen tral rule 

will iron i cally be called by Imre Lakatos the 

“Statutarian Law.” 

The sec ond ar gu ment against strict ref u ta - 

tions ap peals to the ho lis tic na ture of the em - 

pir i cal test ing of hy poth e sis. This means that 

we never em pir i cally test a sin gle iso lated hy - 

poth e sis, but must al ways test an in ter con - 

nected set of hy poth e ses against the ob ser va - 

tional sen tences, which in turn, de pend on 

other the o ret i cal as sump tions, as al ready men - 

tioned. 

In sum, the phys i cist can never sub ject an iso - 

lated hy poth e sis to ex per i men tal test, but only a 

whole group of hy poth e ses; when the ex per i - 

ment is in dis agree ment with his pre dic tions, 

what he learns is that at least one of the hy poth e - 

ses con sti tut ing this group is un ac cept able and 

ought to be mod i fied; but the ex per i ment does 

not des ig nate which one should be changed. 

(Duhem, 1962, 187) 

But the fact that there are no log i cal or meth od - 

olog i cal rules that point out un equiv o cally 

where the er ror lies does not mean the de ci sion 

is ar bi trary and ir ra tio nal. Rather, it means that 

sci en tific ra tio nal ity goes be yond the scope of 

logic and meth od ol ogy, and nec es sar ily en ters 

in the realm of de lib er a tion and prac ti cal rea - 

son or phronesis: 

No ab so lute prin ci ple di rects this in quiry, which 

dif fer ent phys i cists may con duct in very dif fer - 

ent ways with out hav ing the right to ac cuse one 

an other of il log i cal ity. . . . That does not mean 

that we can not very prop erly pre fer the work of 

one of the two to that of the other. Pure logic is 

not the only rule for our judg ments; cer tain 

opin ions which do not fall un der the ham mer of 

the prin ci ple of con tra dic tion are in any case 

per fectly un rea son able. These mo tives which 

do not pro ceed from logic and yet di rect our 

choices, these “rea sons which rea son does not 

know” and which speak to the am ple “mind of 

fi nesse” but not to the “geo met ric mind”, con - 

sti tute what is ap pro pri ately called good sense. 

(Duhem, 1962, 216–17) 

Duhem thinks that “good sense” needs to be 

con sciously cul ti vated by all sci en tists through 

plu ral ist, tol er ant, and wise di a logue with all 

mem bers of their par tic u lar sci en tific com mu - 

ni ties. By vir tue of this plu ral and rea son able 

di a logue, the good sense will even tu ally 

emerge and the con tro versy among sci en tist 

will be set tled ra tio nally. This pru den tial view 

of sci en tific ra tio nal ity was de vel oped again 

half a cen tury later by Kuhn in his es say “The 

Es sen tial Ten sion” (1977), with out any ref er - 

ence to Duhem. 

Plu ral ist con tro ver sies and pru den tial de lib - 

er a tion based on the “good sense” re quire from 

sci en tists some es sen tial moral vir tues that 

coun ter the pas sions that make sci en tists too 

in dul gent with their own hy poth e ses and rather 

se vere with the ri val the o ret i cal sys tems of oth - 

ers. In this way Duhem does not hes i tate to af - 

firm that sci en tific ra tio nal ity de pends in part 

on the moral char ac ter of the sci en tist: 

Since logic does not de ter mine with strict pre ci - 

sion the time when an in ad e quate hy poth e sis 

should give way to a more fruit ful as sump tion, 

and since rec og niz ing this mo ment be longs to 

good sense, phys i cists may has ten this judg - 

ment and in crease the ra pid ity of sci en tific 

prog ress by try ing con sciously to make good 

sense within them selves more lu cid and more 

vig i lant. Now noth ing con trib utes more to en - 

tan gle good sense and to dis turb its in sight than 

pas sions and in ter ests. There fore, noth ing will 

de lay the de ci sion which should de ter mine a 

for tu nate re form in a phys i cal the ory more than 

A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 

79

the van ity which makes a phys i cist too in dul - 

gent to wards his own sys tem and too se vere to - 

wards the sys tem of an other. (Duhem, 1962, 

218) 

A few years later in 1913, Neurath pub - 

lished an in sight ful es say, crit i ciz ing the idea 

that sci ence is just a the o ret i cal prod uct, jus ti - 

fied ex clu sively through log i cal and meth od - 

olog i cal pro ce dures. He called this mis taken 

con cep tion of sci ence “pseudorationalism.” 

Who ever ad heres to the be lief that he can ac - 

com plish ev ery thing with his in sight, an tic i - 

pates in a way that com plete knowl edge of the 

world that Des cartes puts for ward as a far-off 

aim of sci en tific de vel op ment. This 

pseudorationalism leads partly to self-de cep - 

tion, partly to hy poc risy. . . . The 

pseudorationalists do to true ra tio nal ism a dis - 

ser vice if they pre tend to have ad e quate in sight 

ex actly where strict ra tio nal ism ex cludes it on 

purely log i cal grounds. (Neurath, 1983a, 7–8) 

Ac cord ing to Neurath, the found ing fa ther of 

mod ern pseudorationalism was Des cartes and 

the most prom i nent pseudorationalist of the 

twen ti eth cen tury is Pop per (Neurath, 1983b, 

121–31). True ra tio nal ism is con scious of the 

lim ited scope of logic and meth od ol ogy and 

rec og nizes the im por tance of prac ti cal con sid - 

er ations, what he calls “aux il iary mo tives,” to 

choose be tween ri val hy poth e ses. 

The rea sons that spring from aux il iary mo - 

tives are pro vided by val ues, at ti tudes, and be - 

liefs of the spe cific his tor i cal tra di tions in 

which sci en tist are ed u cated. These tra di tions 

con sti tute a her i tage that needs to be crit i cally 

un der stood by the mem bers of a sci en tific 

com mu nity. Such a crit i cal un der stand ing of 

sci en tific tra di tions re quires a proper or ga ni za - 

tion of the sci en tific com mu nity that pro motes 

co op er a tive be hav ior of its mem bers: 

The aux il iary mo tive is well suited to bring 

about a kind of rap proche ment be tween tra di - 

tion and ra tio nal ism. . . . The ap pli ca tion of the 

aux il iary mo tive needs a prior high de gree of or - 

ga ni za tion; only if the pro ce dure is more or less 

com mon to all, will the col lapse of hu man so ci - 

ety be pre vented. The tra di tional uni for mity of 

be hav ior has to be re placed by con scious co op - 

er a tion; the readi ness of a hu man group to co op - 

er ate con sciously, de pends es sen tially on the 

char ac ter of the in di vid u als. (Neurath, 1983a, 

10) 

Co op er a tive be hav ior among sci en tists re - 

quires not only that they share a cer tain sci en - 

tific tra di tion, but also that they have in com - 

mon so cial val ues and com mit ments that 

pro mote the prog ress of sci ence, along with a 

de sire to im prove the well-be ing of the larger 

so ci ety. These so cial com mit ments in clude 

better stan dards of life for the whole so ci ety, 

but also eman ci pa tion from un just dom i na tion 

and ex ploi ta tion of men and women. These so - 

cial and po lit i cal com mit ments and val ues are 

not some thing ex trin sic to the de ci sions that 

sci en tists make in eval u at ing and judg ing sci - 

en tific hy poth e sis, but are in trin sic to the sci - 

en tific ac tiv ity of sci en tists, since these so cial 

and po lit i cal val ues and com mit ments con sti - 

tute the core of the “aux il iary mo tives.” 

Thus for Neurath au then tic sci en tific ra tio - 

nal ity nec es sar ily in te grates con cep tual, log i - 

cal, and meth od olog i cal ques tions with moral, 

so cial, and po lit i cal con sid er ations in or der to 

make ra tio nal de ci sions in eval u at ing and jus - 

ti fy ing sci en tific the o ries. This view of sci en - 

tific ra tio nal ity is very dif fer ent from the 

pseudorationalist con cep tion of sci ence that 

ne glects any rel e vance for eth i cal, so cial, and 

po lit i cal re flec tions in the epistemic dis cus - 

sion about sci en tific ra tio nal ity and, at the 

same time, im poses epistemic con strains on 

the dis cus sion of po lit i cal prob lems. In other 

words, while true ra tio nal ism ac knowl edges 

the lim i ta tion of logic and meth od ol ogy in 

eval u at ing sci en tific the o ries and it calls for the 

con sid er ation of eth i cal, so cial, and po lit i cal 

val ues, tak ing into ac count the ex ter nal im pli - 

ca tions of sci en tific the o ries un der eval u a tion, 

pseudorationalism is blind to the lim its of 

logic and meth od ol ogy, and con se quently dis - 

re gards any rel e vance of other val ues and con - 

sid er ations that are not strictly the o ret i cal and 

epistemological. This pseudo rationalist con - 

cep tion of sci ence is not only mis taken, but 

also rep re sents a se ri ous ten dency to ward po - 

lit i cal au thor i tar i an ism. 

Pseudorationalism and Political Authoritar 

i an ism 

The thought of Duhem and Neurath thus ar - 

gues for a view of sci en tific ra tio nal ity that in - 

volves moral and po lit i cal at ti tudes and val ues 

as well as co op er a tive or ga ni za tion among sci - 

en tists and be tween sci en tific com mu ni ties 


80

and so ci ety at large. This prag matic view op - 

poses the pre vail ing con cep tion of sci en tific 

knowl edge that fo cuses only on epistemic and 

meth od olog i cal jus ti fi ca tion. The re ceived 

view is fur ther as so ci ated with a long tra di tion 

of us ing a so cial im age of sci en tific knowl edge 

to jus tify and le git i mate po lit i cal au thor ity and 

or der. From this per spec tive po lit i cal le git i - 

macy and jus tice de pend on the ob jec tiv ity and 

ra tio nal ity of sci en tific knowl edge, un der - 

stood as in de pend ent of ex ter nal so cial, moral, 

and po lit i cal con sid er ations. Such an asym me - 

try be tween sci ence, on one hand, and mor als 

and pol i tics, on the other, cre ates a hi er ar chy of 

epistemic val ues over eth i cal and po lit i cal val - 

ues. The pri or ity of epistemic val ues in turn 

gives rise to a sci en tific view of pol i tics with 

au thor i tar ian im pli ca tions in which since sci - 

en tific knowl edge is a nec es sary and even suf - 

fi cient con di tion to jus tify po lit i cal de ci sions 

and le git i mate po lit i cal or der. This view of po - 

lit i cal le git i macy may be termed “epistemic 

au thor i tar i an ism.” 

In an tiq uity the clear est ex pres sion of 

epistemic au thor i tar i an ism was Plato’s Re pub - 

lic. For Plato the nec es sary and suf fi cient con - 

di tion of a just po lit i cal or der is that those who 

gov ern have knowl edge of the na ture and 

needs of the di verse kinds of cit i zens. This is 

the rea son why po lit i cal power must be in the 

hands of phi los o phers, the only ones who pos - 

sess a true un der stand ing of hu man be ings and 

so ci ety, and who there fore are able to make 

cor rect po lit i cal de ci sions. 

This pla tonic view of epistemic au thor i tar i - 

an ism has pre vailed for cen tu ries. At the be - 

gin ning of the mod ern age, for ex am ple, Fran - 

cis Ba con still pos tu lated a uto pia based on a 

strong con fi dence in nat u ral sci en tific knowl - 

edge. In his New Atlantis (1626), the gov ern - 

ment of the is land is in the hands of the nat u ral 

phi los o phers of Sol o mon’s House. These sci - 

en tists are thought to be the only per sons ca pa - 

ble of mak ing just de ci sions for the well-be ing 

of all cit i zens, who, in gen eral, are ig no rant, 

and for this rea son have no right to par tic i pate 

in po lit i cal de ci sions. 

But per haps the most bril liant ex pres sion of 

epistemic au thor i tar i an ism is for mu lated by 

Thomas Hobbes. His po lit i cal thought is un - 

doubt edly one of the most in flu en tial the o ries 

in mod ern po lit i cal thought, in clud ing the lib - 

eral tra di tion. The epistemic au thor i tar i an ism 

of Hobbes is based on his po lit i cal ex pe ri ence 

and on his ad mi ra tion of rig or ous meth ods in 

ge om e try and ex per i men tal phys ics. Hobbes 

was a wit ness of the in tense po lit i cal in sta bil ity 

of sev en teenth cen tury Eng land. He per ceived 

that the con stant po lit i cal tur moil was due 

mainly to the di verse and con flict ing views of 

au thor ity among roy al ists, re pub li cans, par lia - 

men tar i ans, and oth ers. The ideo log i cal dis - 

putes among dif fer ent par ties could not be 

solved ra tio nally, due to the fact that there was 

no way of dem on strat ing ra tio nally which 

view was true and which false. This epistemic 

un cer tainty was the main cause of po lit i cal in - 

sta bil ity. To over come such a sit u a tion, it was 

nec es sary to es tab lish a rig or ous po lit i cal or 

civil sci ence based an a con clu sive method to 

set tle ideo log i cal and po lit i cal con tro ver sies. 

Around 1627, dur ing one of his jour neys to 

the con ti nent, Hobbes be came ac quainted 

with the dem on stra tive meth ods of Eu clid ean 

ge om e try and the ex per i men tal pro ce dures of 

Gal i lean me chan ics. What most im pressed 

him was the fact that in these sci ences there 

were no per ma nent con tro ver sies, pre cisely 

be cause they had rig or ous meth ods to dem on - 

strate the truth of one the ory and the fal sity of 

the ri vals. Hobbes at tempted to ex trap o late the 

method of ge om e try to build up an al most ax i - 

om atic the ory of the state based on a mech a nis - 

tic view of hu man ac tion. With such a dem on - 

stra tive method Hobbes pro posed to es tab lish 

the sci en tific foun da tions of a ra tio nal po lit i cal 

or der. Po lit i cal le git i macy be comes based in a 

sci en tific the ory of pol i tics (Skin ner, 1996). 

In Oceana (1656) James Har ring ton cor - 

rectly sur mised that Hobbesì po lit i cal ra tio nal - 

ism im plies an end to re pub li can pol i tics, and 

in op po si tion he ap pealed to the ideas of 

Nicolo Machiavelli. More re cently, Mi chael 

Oakeshott’s Ra tio nal ism in Pol i tics (1962) fur - 

ther crit i cized sci en tific ra tio nal ism in or der to 

vin di cate po lit i cal ed u ca tion based on his tor i - 

cal and philo soph i cal re flec tion as the au then - 

tic way to po lit i cal knowl edge. 

Po lit i cal ra tio nal ism, as con ceived by 

Hobbes, has also had a per va sive in flu ence on 

the lib eral po lit i cal tra di tion, spe cially in the 

North Amer i can dem o cratic thought. In the 

Fed er al ist Pa pers, for in stance, James Mad i - 

son, Al ex an der Ham il ton, and John Jay de - 

fended a con cep tion of po lit i cal rep re sen ta tion 

in which rep re sen ta tives are as sumed to be in - 

tel lec tu ally su pe rior to their con stit u en cies, 

which al ways have am big u ous, chang ing, and 

con tra dic tory views and in ter ests. By vir tue of 

their in tel lec tual su pe ri or ity, rep re sen ta tives 


81

have a more ob jec tive and co her ent knowl edge 

of the real in ter ests of the peo ple and are there - 

fore best able to make cor rect de ci sions for the 

com mon good. For Thomas Jef fer son, who 

was closer to the re pub li can tra di tion of 

Machiavelli and Har ring ton, this view of po lit - 

i cal rep re sen ta tion im plied the de mise re pub li - 

can life, since it im posed bar ri ers on cit i zen 

par tic i pa tion in government. 

Thus the eclipse of civic vir tue, ac tive cit i - 

zen ship, and re pub li can po lit i cal life in mod - 

ern lib eral de moc racy can be ex plained in part 

as a con se quence of sci en tific ra tio nal ism in 

pol i tics, which in turn de rives from that mis - 

taken view of sci ence that Neurath called 

“pseudorationalism.” This means that crit i - 

cism of the pseudorationalist view of sci ence is 

not only an epistemological is sue but also a po - 

lit i cal one, since such crit i cism serves to erode 

those as so ci a tions be tween sci en tific knowl - 

edge and au thor i tar ian pol i tics that have been 

in de pend ently crit i cized by such think ers as 

Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jürgen Habermas, and 

Paul Feyerabend, among oth ers. 

Sci ence and Re pub li can De moc racy 

From the per spec tive of pseudorational ism 

there is no jus ti fi ca tion for the free, plu ral par - 

tic i pa tion of cit i zens in pol i tics, since they 

gen er ally do not pos ses sci en tific ex per tise 

req ui site to for ra tio nal de ci sion mak ing. 

There are two ways to break this as so ci a tion 

be tween pseudorationalism and au thor i tar ian 

pol i tics. One is to at tempt to dif fuse sci ence 

into the body pol i tic; the other is to re con sider 

the char ac ter of sci ence. 

First, one may pro mote in creased sci en tific 

ed u ca tion and com mu ni ca tion of sci en tific 

knowl edge, so that all cit i zens be come sci en - 

tif i cally lit er a ture. This is the strat egy typ i cal 

of clas si cal pos i tiv ism (e.g., Auguste Comte 

and Her bert Spencer), as well as of much con - 

tem po rary sci ence ed u ca tion. But pos i tiv ism is 

still based on a mis taken con cep tion of sci en - 

tific ra tio nal ity, since it rests on an non crit i cal 

con fi dence in sci en tific method. 

Sec ond, one may crit i cize 

pseudorationalism it self, af ter the al ready con - 

sid ered man ner of Duhem and Neurath, both 

of whom ar gue that ra tio nal ity in sci ence rests 

not only on log i cal meth ods but also on pru - 

den tial de lib er a tion and judg ment (“good 

sense” or “aux il iary mo tives”). Au then tic sci - 

en tific ra tio nal ity re quires some moral prin ci - 

ples and vir tues (fallibilism, tol er ance) as well 

as a re pub li can at mo sphere within the sci en - 

tific com mu nity. 

If ci vil ity and plu ral ism are re quired to 

reach epistemic con sen sus in that par a digm of 

ra tio nal knowl edge called sci ence, then surely 

it is rea son able to sug gest that the cre ation of 

so cial and po lit i cal knowl edge may re quire 

sim i lar con di tions. The pru den tial view of sci - 

en tific ra tio nal ity as pro posed by Duhem and 

Neurath thus chal lenges the epistemic bases of 

po lit i cal au thor i tar i an ism and fos ters a new 

kind of prac ti cal ra tio nal ism in pol i tics, based 

on ex ten sive, free, plu ral ist cit i zen par tic i pa - 

tion po lit i cal de ci sion making. 

In ad di tion, it is nec es sar ily to con sider how 

sci ence and tech nol ogy may con trib ute to a 

more just so ci ety and dem o cratic state, es pe - 

cially in light of the in creas ing de pend ence of 

so cial and po lit i cal life on technoscientific 

prog ress. To ex plore how this is sue, I re turn to 

Neurath’s view of sci ence, es pe cially to his no - 

tion of aux il iary mo tives. Aux il iary mo tives 

re fer mainly to so cial at ti tudes, per cep tions, 

and val ues sit u ated in so cially shared his tor i - 

cal tra di tions. Neurath thinks that aux il iary 

mo tives con sti tute a com mu ni ca tive space 

com mon to the sci en tific com mu nity and the 

larger so ci ety. For aux il iary mo tives to func - 

tion prop erly this pub lic space com mon to sci - 

en tists and cit i zens must in clude guide lines for 

its own co op er a tive re la tions. That is, sci en - 

tists must take into ac count the so cial and pub - 

lic char ac ter of sci ence for ad dress ing the most 

im por tant and gen eral so cial needs, and they 

must rec og nize their re spon si bil i ties for the 

con se quences of sci ence and tech nol ogy. Cit i - 

zens, for their part, must be come more con - 

scious of the so cial need to sup port and fund 

the de vel op ment of sci en tific re search and 

tech no log i cal de vel op ment. 

Re cently phi los o phers of sci ence such as 

Philip Kitcher (2001) and Steve Fuller (2002) 

have ex am ined the po lit i cal re la tion ships be - 

tween the sci en tific com mu nity and the so cial 

com mu nity at large. Both ar gue that there must 

be a kind of re pub li can ethos and in sti tu tions 

that reg u late the re la tions be tween sci ence and 

so ci ety, in a sim i lar way to the view sup ported 

by Neurath al most one hun dred years ear lier. 

Carl Mit cham (2003) has like wise ar gued for 

the co-re spon si bil ity of sci en tists and non-sci - 

en tists in the for mu la tion of pro fes sional eth - 

ics in sci ence. In deed, the true re pub lic of sci - 

ence must be ex tended from sci ence to the 


82

sci ence-so ci ety re la tion ship in or der to mir ror 

the dialogical re quire ments of sci ence and to 

pro mote the ra tio nal and just dis tri bu tion of the 

ben e fits, both ma te rial and cul tural, to be de - 

rived from sci ence and tech nol ogy. 

REFERENCES 

Duhem, Pi erre. (1962). The Aim and Struc ture of Phys i - 

cal The ory. New York: Atheneum. First pub lished 1906. 

Echeverría, José. (2002) Ciencia y valores. Bar ce lona: 

Destino. 

Fuller, Steve. (1993) Phi los o phy, Rhet o ric and the End of 

Knowl edge: The Com ing of Sci ence and Tech nol ogy 

Stud ies. Mad i son: Uni ver sity of Wis con sin Press. 

Fuller, Steve. (2000) The Gov er nance of Sci ence: Ide ol - 

ogy and the Fu ture of Open So ci ety. Buckingham, U K: 

Open Uni ver sity Press. 

Ibarra, Andoni, and José An to nio López Cerezo, eds. 

(2003) “Stud ies in Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and So ci ety 

(STS): North and South,” spe cial theme is sue, Tech nol - 

ogy in So ci ety 25 (April): 149–273. Ear lier and slightly 

dif fer ent Span ish ver sion: Desafíos y tensiones actuales 

en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad (Ma drid: 

Organización de Estados Americanos, Biblioteca 

Nueva, 2001). 



Kuhn, Thomas. (1977) “The Es sen tial Ten sion: Tra di tion 

and In no va tion in Sci en tific Re search,” in The Es sen tial 

Ten sion: Se lected Stud ies in Sci en tific Tra di tion and 

Change (Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press, 1977), 

225–39. An es say first pub lished in 1959. 

Mit cham, Carl, ed. (1995) So cial and Philo soph i cal Con - 

struc tions of Tech nol ogy. Green wich: JAI Press. 

Mit cham, C. (2003). “Co-Re spon si bil ity for Re search In - 

tegrity,” Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 273–90. 

Neurath, Otto. (1983). Philo soph i cal Pa pers: 1913– 

1946. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 

Neurath, Otto. (1983a) “The Last Wan der ers of Des cartes 

and the Aux il iary Mo tives,” in Neurath (1983), 1–12. 

Neurath, Otto. (1983b) “Pseudorationalism of Fal si fi ca - 

tion,” in Neurath (1983), 121–31. 

Oakeshott, Mi chael. (1962) Rationalism in Politics and 

Other Es says. New York; Ba sic Books. 

Olivé, Leon. (2000) El bien, el mal y la razón: Facetas de 

la ciencia y de la tecnología. Mex ico: Paidós, UNAM. 

Pickering, An drew, ed. (1992) Sci ence as Prac tice and 

Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 

Pop per, Karl. (1980) The Logic of Sci en tific Dis cov ery. 

Lon don: Hutch in son. 

Skin ner, Quentin. (1996) Rea son and Rhet o ric in the Phi - 

los o phy of Thomas Hobbes. Cam bridge: Cam bridge 



83

SCI ENCE POL ICY FOR IN DIA 

A MEMO TO THE IN DIAN COUN CIL OF SCI EN TIFIC AND IN DUS TRIAL RE SEARCH 

Uday T. Turaga and Rama Mohana Turaga 

Af ter re tir ing as chair man and re search di - 

rec tor of an In dian oil com pany in the mid- 

1990s, the dis tin guished sci en tist Pranab 

Kumar Mukhopadhyay be came a tech ni cal 

con sul tant for the In dian In sti tute of Pe tro leum 

(IIP). The IIP, one of In dia’s pre mier na tional 

lab o ra to ries, is sit u ated at the foot hills of the 

Hi ma la yas, bor der ing the Rajaji Na tional Park 

in Dehra Dun. On his vis its to IIP, 

Mukhopadhyay would un fail ingly be gin his 

day with a morn ing walk through the In sti - 

tute’s tea gar dens and the neigh bor ing vil lages. 

By the way side of a route that he fre quented, 

was a small fur nace that a farmer used to make 

jaggery from sug ar cane. 

Mukhopadhyay, who holds a doc tor ate in 

the sci ences and spent the bulk of his pro fes - 

sional life re search ing hy dro car bon fu els, 

com bus tion, and en ergy, in tu itively felt that 

the fur nace de sign and ef fi ciency could be im - 

proved. Fu eled by ba gasse, waste gen er ated 

af ter sug ar cane had been squeezed of its juice, 

the fur nace had been de signed and built by the 

farmer him self. The in quis i tive and thought ful 

Mukhopadhyay soon be friended the farmer 

and per suaded him to let IIP en gi neers ex am - 

ine the fur nace. 

Mukhopadhyay also con vinced his good 

friend, the di rec tor of IIP, to as sign the pro ject 

of ex am in ing the fur nace and im prov ing its de - 

sign to a staff com bus tion en gi neer. Com bus - 

tion sci en tists and en gi neers from the IIP were 

able to im prove ef fi ciency and de sign such that 

jaggery pro duc tion went up by 20%. Al most a 

de cade later, the im proved fur nace de sign to 

make jaggery and its con se quent ben e fits to lo - 

cal farm ers is an achieve ment that IIP lead er - 

ship never fails to high light in pre sen ta tions to 

vis it ing pol i ti cians and ad min is tra tors. 

This story high lights the po ten tial for sci en - 

tific re search and de vel op ment (R&D) in de - 

vel op ing coun tries like In dia and vin di cates 

the be lief that In dia’s first prime min is ter, 

Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964), had in sci ence 

and its transformative ca pa bil i ties. Even so, 

the ex am ple also de picts the fail ure of In dian 

sci ence to show rel e vance to In dian needs. Af - 

ter all, it took a vis it ing tech ni cal con sul tant to 

spur IIP to ad dress a tech ni cal need in its 

neigh bor ing com mu nity of thirty years. 

The pur suit of sci ence for its own sake is no - 

ble and cer tainly worth en cour ag ing. At the 

same time, a por tion of sci en tific and tech no - 

log i cal re search must ad dress eco nomic and 

so cial prob lems, par tic u larly so for the de vel - 

op ing world where there are com pet ing de - 

mands for scarce re sources. Lead ing In dian 

sci en tific agen cies are acutely aware of this 

and one of them, the Coun cil of Sci en tific and 

In dus trial Re search (CSIR), has be gun a sys - 

temic anal y sis of this is sue through an ex pert 

com mit tee chaired by the re nowned In dian 

econ o mist and pol icy maker, Vijay Kelkar. In 

the fall of 2003, the au thors were in vited by the 

Kelkar Com mit tee to au thor a back ground pa - 

per on this sub ject to high light key is sues. This 

con tri bu tion is based on that back ground pa - 

per. 

Back ground: The Coun cil of Sci en tific and 

Industrial Research 

The CSIR was es tab lished in the early 

1940s to pro vide the sci en tific and tech no log i - 

cal un der pin nings of an in dus tri al iz ing na tion. 

The CSIR is In dia’s larg est sci en tific es tab lish - 

ment and prob a bly the world’s larg est chain of 

pub licly funded re search lab o ra to ries 

(Rajagopal et al., 1991). Through its net work 

of thirty-eight re search lab o ra to ries and in sti - 

tutes and eighty field sta tions and ex ten sion 

cen ters, CSIR is al most ubiq ui tous in In dia. 

Cov er ing a wide spec trum of sci ence and tech - 

nol ogy, CSIR’s re search lab o ra to ries are clas - 

si fied as dis ci pline- and busi ness sec tor-spe - 

cific. The Na tional Chem i cal Lab o ra tory 

(Pune) and the Na tional Phys i cal Lab o ra tory 

(New Delhi) are ex am ples of dis ci pline-spe - 

cific lab o ra to ries, while the IPP (Dehra Dun) 

the Cen tral Leather Re search In sti tute 

(Chennai) and the Cen tral Drug Re search In - 

sti tute (Lucknow) are ex am ples of busi ness 

sec tor-spe cific lab o ra to ries. 


84

With al most 21,000 em ploy ees, an elab o - 

rate man age ment struc ture dom i nates CSIR, 

which, al though fed er ally funded, is struc tured 

as an au ton o mous and in de pend ent or ga ni za - 

tion. CSIR re ports to and is ad vised by what is 

called the So ci ety, chaired by In dia’s Prime 

Min is ter, with other mem bers usu ally be ing 

the min is ters for sci ence and tech nol ogy, fi - 

nance, and hu man re sources de vel op ment. The 

chief ex ec u tive of fi cer of CSIR is des ig nated 

as di rec tor-gen eral, while di rec tors pre side 

over each of the con stit u ent lab o ra to ries. The 

di rec tor-gen eral and the di rec tors are al most 

al ways well known prac tic ing sci en tists and 

en gi neers. A Gov ern ing Body and the Ad vi - 

sory Board ad vise the di rec tor-gen eral. The di - 

rec tor-gen eral pre sides over the Gov ern ing 

Body (oc cu pied by mem bers of the bu reau - 

cracy and In dian sci en tific com mu nity and a 

few CSIR lab o ra tory di rec tors), which ap - 

proves fis cal, man age ment, and ad min is tra tive 

pol i cies. The Ad vi sory Board is com posed of 

em i nent sci en tists, tech nol o gists, and 

businesspersons and pro vides in tel lec tual in - 

puts to the di rec tor-gen eral. A Man age ment 

Coun cil as sists di rec tors of the con stit u ent lab - 

o ra to ries on ad min is tra tive de ci sions, while 

the re search phi los o phy and di rec tion of each 

con stit u ent lab o ra tory is vetted by a Re search 

Ad vi sory Coun cil usu ally headed by a sci en - 

tist of em i nence in the lab o ra tory’s field of 

expertise. 

CSIR em barked on a se ries of or ga ni za - 

tional and ad min is tra tive re forms through the 

1990s to im prove its re search and tech no log i - 

cal pro duc tiv ity and rel e vance (Turaga, 2000). 

Busi ness In dia, cor po rate In dia’s lead ing and 

most re spected busi ness fort nightly, de voted 

its June 1999 cover story to the trans for ma tion 

of CSIR and shift in re search pri or i ties from 

“re search for its own sake” to “re search rel e - 

vant to the needs of eco nomic agents” 

(Advani, 1999). 

Evaluation of CSIR Socio-economic Benefits 

Con sis tent with this new com mit ment to 

pub lic ac count abil ity, CSIR re cently cre ated a 

com mit tee chaired by Dr. Vijay Kelkar to “as - 

sess and value the socio-eco nomic-en vi ron - 

men tal ben e fits aris ing from CSIR’s R&D out - 

comes and sci ence and tech nol ogy ac tiv i ties” 

(Coun cil of Sci en tific and In dus trial Re search, 

2003). It is in this con text that this pa per dis - 

cusses the ways in which the eco nomic and 

so cial ben e fits of CSIR’s re search could be 

eval u ated. 

Per the terms of ref er ence, the Kelkar Com - 

mit tee is charged with two tasks. The first is an 

anal y sis of CSIR’s eco nomic and so cial im - 

pact. The sec ond is to iden tify met rics to en - 

able eval u a tion of a pub licly funded R&D or - 

ga ni za tion such as CSIR and, fi nally, 

rec om mend mea sures to op ti mize the ef fec - 

tive ness of pub lic in vest ments. The fo cus of 

our pa per, how ever, is on the first task, i.e., as - 

sess ment of so cial and eco nomic ben e fits. 

In this ar ti cle our aim is to pro vide an over - 

view of var i ous eco nomic and so cial ben e fits 

that the Kelkar Com mit tee might want to con - 

sider, in the con text of what we know about 

CSIR’s ac tiv i ties. We do not dis cuss the met - 

rics that could be used to quan tify the ben e fits. 

We first out line the eco nomic ben e fits of 

R&D, which are well rec og nized now and on 

which a good deal of lit er a ture al ready ex ists. 

Then we sug gest a few pos si ble so cial ben e fits 

that are rel e vant in the con text of CSIR’s re - 

search port fo lio and make some rec om men da - 

tions for the Com mit tee. 

Eco nomic Ben e fits of CSIR’s Re search 

and Development 

It is now well un der stood that sci ence and 

tech nol ogy are crit i cal in stru ments to im prove 

qual ity of hu man life, in dus trial com pet i tive - 

ness, and eco nomic growth. In fact, the Or ga - 

ni za tion for Eco nomic Co op er a tion and De - 

vel op ment (OECD) now la bels the emerg ing 

eco nomic or der as the “knowl edge-based 

econ omy.” Al though such as ser tions re flect 

rec og ni tion of the in creas ing role played by 

knowl edge and tech nol ogy in eco nomic 

growth “the ex act re la tion ship be tween pub lic 

sup port for sci en tific re search and the level of 

eco nomic per for mance and so cial well-be ing 

re mains more a mat ter of af fir ma tion, than a 

set of facts based on mea sure ment and anal y sis 

by sci ence pol icy re search ers” (Wolfe and 

Salter, 1997). 

In a re cent re view of lit er a ture on eco nomic 

ben e fits of pub lic-funded re search, Salter and 

Mar tin (2001) iden ti fied six pos si ble ben e fits 

from pub licly funded re search. This re view 

was pri mar ily based on re search in de vel oped 

coun tries. Nev er the less, we think that all these 

ben e fits are rel e vant for as sess ment of CSIR’s 

re search. In the fol low ing sec tions, we use the 

SCI ENCE POL ICY FOR INDIA 

85

clas si fi ca tion of eco nomic ben e fits iden ti fied 

by Salter and Mar tin to dis cuss their ap pli ca - 

bil ity in CSIR’s con text. 

1. In creas ing the Stock of Use ful In for ma tion 

One can think of gov ern ment fund ing for 

ba sic re search as ex pand ing the tech no log i cal 

op por tu ni ties avail able to so ci ety. In di vid u als 

and firms need to ex pend sig nif i cant re sources 

to use the in for ma tion gen er ated by pub licly 

funded re search in ways that re sult in new 

tech nol o gies and prod ucts and hence in - 

creased ben e fits. CSIR’s con tri bu tions to ward 

ex pand ing the “stock of use ful in for ma tion” 

that has fa cil i tated tech ni cal and tech no log i cal 

de vel op ment ca pa bil i ties of In dian in dus try 

must be ad dressed. A spe cific ques tion, for ex - 

am ple, would be how CSIR has en abled In dian 

in dus try to suc cess fully im ple ment and in te - 

grate tech nol o gies li censed from abroad. 

2. Train ing Skilled Grad u ates 

The sup ply of new grad u ates, equipped 

with train ing, knowl edge, net works, and ex - 

per tise, to in dus trial re search ac tiv ity is con - 

sid ered one of the pri mary ben e fits of pub licly 

funded re search. CSIR has con crete and wellpub 

li cized achieve ments in this area, e.g., the 

ex em plary fi nan cial, infrastructural, and in tel - 

lec tual sup port that CSIR pro vides to doc toral 

stu dents and the ex am i na tion pro cess of un im - 

peach able in teg rity that CSIR con ducts along 

with In dia’s Uni ver sity Grants Com mis sion to 

“cer tify” the cal i ber and qual ity of col lege and 

uni ver sity teach ers. These ef forts have had im - 

pli ca tions more pro found and valu able in sus - 

tain ing In dia’s in tel lec tual en ter prise than gen - 

er ally rec og nized. Re search is a crit i cal 

com po nent of mod ern higher ed u ca tion and 

the in abil ity of In dian uni ver si ties to pro vide 

for that com po nent has been off set, to a cer tain 

ex tent, by CSIR. It is im por tant that stud ies to 

quan tify CSIR’s achieve ments in this area be 

con ducted. 

3. Creating New Scientific Instrumentation and 

Meth od ol o gies 

Sci en tists of ten cre ate new in stru men ta tion, 

tech niques, and an a lyt i cal meth ods that even - 

tu ally are adopted and used in in dus trial pro - 

cesses. Ex am ples of CSIR’s tech ni cal and an a - 

lyt i cal ser vices to ei ther cer tify in dus trial 

prod ucts or eval u ate the ef fi cacy of do mes tic 

or im ported in dus trial pro cesses and prod ucts 

are nu mer ous. Of greater im port are CSIR ser - 

vices in pro vid ing ex pert in put on sci en tific 

and tech ni cal is sues of na tional con cern. Spe - 

cific and con tem po rary ex am ples in clude the 

ser vices that the CSIR con stit u ent lab o ra tory, 

Cen tral Food Tech nol ogy Re search In sti tute, 

pro vided to the Joint Par lia men tary Com mit - 

tee that in ves ti gated the is sue of pes ti cide res i - 

due in pop u lar soft drinks sold in In dia. Sim i lar 

tech ni cal ad vice was pro vided in the past to 

Mashelkar Com mit tee on Auto Fuel Pol icy, 

the Ramar Pillai syn thetic re new able fuel con - 

tro versy, and the Bhopal gas di sas ter. 

4. Forming Networks and Stimulating 

New In ter ac tions 

Gov ern ment fund ing brings to gether the 

pro duc ers of knowl edge (sci en tists funded 

through gov ern ment) and the con sum ers of 

knowl edge (firms) through in for mal net works 

re sult ing in an in creased pool of tech no log i cal 

op por tu ni ties and re search ac tiv ity rel e vant to 

firms. If this ben e fit is nar rowly in ter preted, 

one man i fes ta tion would be con sor tia fo cused 

on spe cific tech ni cal sub jects, e.g., the Na - 

tional Chem i cal Lab o ra tory’s ef fort to or ga - 

nize a con sor tium fo cused on fuel cells, on 

which there is very lit tle work cur rently un der - 

way in In dia. Such an ini tia tive to or ga nize and 

im ple ment such a con sor tium strongly high - 

lights the pos i tive and cre ative role that CSIR 

and its lab o ra to ries are play ing in help ing In - 

dian play ers pen e trate new and im por tant 

fields of re search. An at tempt to iden tify other 

sim i lar ex am ples by CSIR lab o ra to ries must 

be made. 

5. In creas ing the Ca pac ity for Sci en tific and Tech - 

no log i cal Prob lem Solv ing 

Ba sic re search helps in tech no log i cal prob - 

lem solv ing for firms through sup ply of skilled 

prob lem solv ers as well as by in creas ing the 

gen eral pool of knowl edge. Firms of ten find 

ap plied re search rather than ba sic re search 

more rel e vant to their tech nol ogy base. How - 

ever, this rel e vance var ies by sec tor. Sci encebased 

sec tors such as pharmaceuticals use ba - 

sic re search more di rectly than en gi neer ingbased 

sec tors such as au to mo tive in dus try. One 

ex am ple of CSIR’s suc cess in pro vid ing a pool 

of skilled la bor is its emer gence as a des ti na - 

tion for outsourced R&D (Turaga, 2003). This 

is one form of global rec og ni tion of CSIR and 

thus, the na tion’s im proved sci en tific and tech - 

no log i cal prob lem solv ing ca pac ity. 


86

6. Cre at ing New Firms 

It is well known that start-up com pa nies of - 

ten im ple ment the com mer cial iza tion of 

break through re search. Such or ga ni za tions are 

in stru ments for gen er at ing em ploy ment, cre at - 

ing eco nomic ac tiv ity, and, of course, re duc ing 

ab stract re search con cepts to con crete re al ity. 

While there are some good ex am ples of re - 

gional ag glom er a tion of new firms clus tered 

around re search-in ten sive uni ver si ties, the ev i - 

dence for this ben e fit is mixed be cause of the 

fail ure of sev eral such spin-offs as well as the 

very low growths reg is tered by many oth ers. A 

de tailed anal y sis of CSIR’s con tri bu tions in 

this area should be con ducted. While suc cess - 

ful ex am ples are of ten widely pub li cized, a 

com plete in ven tory is crit i cal for a mean ing ful 

assessment. 

So cial Ben e fits of R&D: 

More Ques tions, Few Ideas 

While quan ti fi ca tion of eco nomic ben e fits 

of R&D has re ceived sig nif i cant at ten tion in 

the de vel oped world, the same can not be said 

for quan ti fy ing the so cial im pact. Here there is 

a con spic u ous lack of lit er a ture on meth ods, 

mod els, or prob lems. A sig nif i cant hin drance 

to mea sur ing R&D so cial ben e fits stems from 

the dif fi culty of de fin ing “so cial ben e fit.” 

More of ten than not, so cial ben e fits are 

linked to eco nomic ben e fits, which ex plains 

why there has been so lit tle fo cus on iden ti fy - 

ing so cial ben e fits them selves. For ex am ple, 

higher qual ity health care could be a so cial 

ben e fit of sci en tific prog ress. How ever, it is 

also known that an in di vid ual’s ac cess to qual - 

ity health care typ i cally im proves with growth 

in his or her eco nomic sit u a tion. There fore, it 

is not clear how the ac cru ing so cial ben e fits of 

sci ence should be eval u ated in de pend ent of 

de riv a tive eco nomic ben e fits. 

We ar gue that such quan ti fi ca tion of sci en - 

tific and tech no log i cal ben e fits only in terms 

of eco nomic ben e fits is too nar row, es pe cially 

in a de vel op ing coun try con text. That most 

eco nomic ben e fits re sult in so cial de vel op - 

ment is in dis put able, but the val u a tion of 

R&D’s so cial ben e fits as a mere de riv a tive of 

eco nomic ben e fits is an in com plete and shal - 

low anal y sis. Nev er the less it re mains very dif - 

fi cult to quan tify any kind of ef fort, not just sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy, in terms of so ci etal 

ben e fits. 

In this sec tion, we out line a few so cial ben e - 

fits that the Kelkar Com mit tee might want to 

con sider. We do not claim to pres ent an ex - 

haus tive list of so cial ben e fits, but our aim is to 

di rect at ten tion to what we con sider some of 

the more im por tant pos si bil i ties. 

Be fore go ing into spe cif ics, we sug gest that 

the Com mit tee should con sider get ting an - 

swers to some broader ques tions that will set 

the stage for a more spe cific as sess ment. Such 

ques tions in clude: 

● How does CSIR de fine so cially rel e vant 

re search? 

●What per cent age of R&D ex pen di ture is 

fo r so cially rel e vant re search? 

● What per cent age of CSIR out put re sults in 

prod ucts? 

● How do CSIR’s ac com plish ments in so - 

cially rel e vant re search, e.g., low-cost hous - 

ing, com pare with the ini tia tives of other or ga - 

ni za tions? 

● What kinds of in cen tives ex ist within 

CSIR to en cour age so cially rel e vant R&D? 

For ex am ple, of CSIR’s Bhatnagar, Young Sci - 

en tist, and Tech nol ogy De vel op ment awards, 

how many have been awarded to sci en tists ac - 

tive in so cially rel e vant re search? What have 

been the ca reer paths and pro gres sion of sci en - 

tists pur su ing so cially rel e vant R&D. 

1. Ben e fits to Weaker Sec tions of So ci ety 

One in di ca tor of R&D so cial ben e fits con - 

cerns con tri bu tions to the eco nom i cally 

weaker sec tions of so ci ety. Such ben e fits are 

par tic u larly im por tant in the con text of a coun - 

try such as In dia, where mil lions live be low the 

pov erty line and can not af ford min i mum ba sic 

needs. Ex am ples of ef forts fo cused to ward 

achiev ing such ob jec tives in clude re search on 

ef fec tive and low-cost hous ing and san i ta tion. 

CSIR in sti tu tions such as the Cen tral Build ing 

Re search In sti tute (CBRI) and the Na tional 

En vi ron men tal En gi neer ing Re search In sti tute 

(NEERI) have en gaged in sim i lar ac tiv i ties. 

2. Informing Indian Society 

In the past de cade, CSIR has quickly re - 

sponded to global sci en tific de vel op ments. For 

ex am ple, soon af ter genomics and 

nanotechnology be came glob ally rec og nized 

sci en tific chal lenges, CSIR re sponded with 

ma jor ini tia tives, e.g., by re nam ing one of its 

bio chem i cal lab o ra to ries as the In sti tute of 

Genomics and In te gra tive Bi ol ogy and es tab - 

lish ing a na tional col lab o ra tive re search ini tia - 


87

tive on nanotechnology. Al though these are 

im por tant and laud able con tri bu tions that re - 

flect CSIR’s sci en tific con scious ness and its 

deep com mit ment to po si tion In dia as a stake - 

holder in the emerg ing global sci en tific 

agenda, there are sev eral other global prob - 

lems that re quire im me di ate and equal at ten - 

tion. Some ex am ples in clude global cli mate 

change, de ple tion of strato spheric ozone, and 

in tro duc tion of ge net i cally mod i fied (GM) 

foods. 

The Kelkar Com mit tee must ask what re - 

search CSIR has gen er ated to help In dia pro - 

tect its eco nomic and en vi ron men tal in ter ests 

in the face of in ter na tional pres sure to com ply 

with trea ties such as the Kyoto Pro to col. While 

the west ern world is the main con trib u tor of 

green house gas emis sions, the im pact of 

global cli mate change is more likely to be felt 

in de vel op ing coun tries such as In dia, in ways 

dis pro por tion ate to their con tri bu tions to emis - 

sions. In or der to pres ent In dia’s case in in ter - 

na tional fo rums cor rectly and force fully, re - 

search on un der stand ing the im pacts of global 

cli mate change on In dian so ci ety is ex tremely 

im por tant. Ad di tion ally, the Kelkar Com mit - 

tee must ask what re search CSIR is con duct ing 

to help equip In dian in dus try to re spond to an 

en vi ron ment where car bon di ox ide emis sions 

would be sub ject to en vi ron men tal reg u la - 

tions. 

Along with pre par ing In dia for the fu ture, 

the Kelkar Com mit tee must eval u ate CSIR’s 

re cord on in form ing In dian so ci ety to help its 

cit i zens live a safe, healthy, and mean ing ful 

life. The re cent con tro versy about the qual ity 

of pop u lar soft drinks and co las in In dia is a 

good ex am ple. How has CSIR con trib uted to - 

ward iden ti fy ing and solv ing such prob lems? 

Al though it must be rec og nized that CSIR has 

lit tle reg u la tory ju ris dic tion or re spon si bil ity, 

it is re spected as one of the most ad vanced and 

high pro file sci en tific in sti tu tions of In dia. 

This rep u ta tion along with the pub lic fund ing 

it re ceives make it re spon si ble to con trib ute 

proactively to sci en tific and health is sues of 

na tional in ter est. 

3. Gen er at ing Sci en tific Aware ness 

The em i nent sci ence ed u ca tor Carl Sagan 

has re port edly cau tioned that “it is sui cidal to 

cre ate a so ci ety de pend ent on sci ence and 

tech nol ogy in which hardly any body knows 

any thing about sci ence and tech nol ogy” 

(Sejnowski, 2003). Sci en tific lit er acy in so ci - 

ety is con sid ered ben e fi cial for sev eral rea - 

sons: it in creases the un der stand ing of 

strengths and lim i ta tions of sci ence so that the 

pub lic has re al is tic ex pec ta tions about what 

sci ence can and can not do; it gen er ates aware - 

ness about and in ter est in is sues that af fect so - 

ci ety, and hence en ables dem o cratic de ci sion 

mak ing in pub lic pol i cies; it pre vents the pub - 

lic from be ing prey to dog ma tists; and in gen - 

eral it pro motes an in tel lec tual cul ture 

(Laugksch, 2000). 

Hav ing said this, it is equally im por tant for 

sci ence ad min is tra tors and in sti tu tions to cre - 

ate im proved aware ness about the lim i ta tions 

of mod ern sci ence and tech nol ogy. The pas - 

sion for their pro fes sion en sures that sci en tists 

will pub li cize the ca pa bil i ties and ben e fits of 

sci ence and tech nol ogy. How ever, it is far from 

a sure thing that they will do an equally 

proactive and qual i fied job in ed u cat ing In dian 

so ci ety about the lim i ta tions and down side po - 

ten tial of new sci ence. Such bal anced sci en - 

tific lit er acy, es pe cially on cur rent is sues of na - 

tional and global im por tance, can not be 

fos tered only through class room ed u ca tion. 

CSIR, as an in sti tu tion boast ing re search ac tiv - 

ity in a wide range of sci en tific dis ci plines and 

with a pres ence in al most ev ery part of In dia, 

has great po ten tial to gen er ate, through its vast 

com mu nity of sci en tists, the right aware ness 

and un der stand ing of the cur rent sci en tific is - 

sues and con tro ver sies. 

4. CSIR and Na tional In te gra tion 

By 2010, the Eu ro pean Un ion wants to be - 

come “the most com pet i tive and dy namic 

knowl edge-based econ omy in the world, ca pa - 

ble of sus tain able eco nomic growth with more 

and better jobs and greater so cial co he sion” 

(Lis bon Eu ro pean Coun cil Pres i dency Con - 

clu sions, 2000 [em pha sis ours]). Lead ers of 

Eu ro pean gov ern ments con sider R&D in sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy as a vi tal mech a nism to 

achieve these ob jec tives, and agreed at Bar ce - 

lona in 2002 to de vote, by 2010, 3% of their 

Gross Do mes tic Prod uct (GDP) to R&D and to 

de velop sci ence pol i cies that fos ter re search 

pro grams of not pa ro chial but com mon “Eu ro - 

pean” in ter est (Papon, 2003). The con fi dence 

that the mak ers of the Eu ro pean Un ion have 

placed on sci ence and tech nol ogy as a pro - 

moter of “so cial co he sion”—a con cept that the 

In di ans know by the phrase, “na tional in te gra - 

tion”—is re mark able. 


88

Na tional in te gra tion, whose rel e vance 

never ages in In dia, is nev er the less an old con - 

cept for the coun try. It is there fore ironic that 

In dia should learn from the faith the Eu ro pean 

Un ion has placed in sci ence and tech nol ogy to 

achieve in te gra tion and co he sion. Not with - 

stand ing the sev eral cre ative means in which 

lead ers of in de pend ent In dia, par tic u larly 

Jawaharlal Nehru, fur thered the idea and im - 

por tance of na tional in te gra tion, we are un - 

aware of sci ence and tech nol ogy be ing ex plic - 

itly cited as one. Only in re cent years has R. A. 

Mashelkar of CSIR made a ref er ence—that 

too, an in di rect one—to na tional in te gra tion 

via sci ence and tech nol ogy when he ar tic u - 

lated the con cept of “Team In dia” and “Team 

CSIR” (Coun cil of Sci en tific and In dus trial 

Re search, 1999). 

In any case, just be cause na tional in te gra - 

tion was not ex plic itly ar tic u lated in In dia as a 

so cial ben e fit of sci ence and tech nol ogy does 

not im ply the ab sence of such a re la tion ship. 

We are, in fact, cer tain that a strong sense of 

na tional in te gra tion was fa cil i tated in a subcon 

scious mode by CSIR R&D ac tiv i ties. Af - 

ter all, there is no re gion in the coun try where a 

CSIR lab does not ex ist. Fur ther, sci ence and 

sci en tists by their very na ture seek col lab o ra - 

tive work, and one may ex pect inter-lab o ra tory 

col lab o ra tions to have fur thered the cause of 

na tional in te gra tion. 

Less di rectly, CSIR labs by their very pres - 

ence in dif fer ent parts of the coun try should 

have re sulted in cos mo pol i tan com mu ni ties 

pop u lated by highly ed u cated in di vid u als pos - 

sess ing a strong sense of na tional and so cial re - 

spon si bil ity. It is rea son able to ex pect such 

cen ters of con scious cit i zenry to in flu ence lo - 

cal com mu ni ties in co he sive and in clu sive 

ways. This, of course, might not be a di rect 

out come of CSIR’s R&D ac tiv i ties but is no 

less valu able. 

Conclusions 

Re search and de vel op ment as a crit i cal in - 

stru ment for eco nomic growth is now well in - 

grained in eco nomic tra di tion and sig nif i cant 

ef fort ex ists on quan ti fy ing R&D’s eco nomic 

ben e fits. Con sis tent with this trend, pre vi ous 

ef forts (e.g., Abid Hussain Com mit tee, 

Mashelkar Com mit tee) to ex am ine CSIR ac - 

tiv i ties, while no less im por tant, have fo cused 

on im prov ing the or ga ni za tion’s ef fec tive ness 

in terms of sci en tific out put, eco nomic im pact, 

and rel e vance to the mar ket place. In com par i - 

son to eco nomic ben e fits, lit tle ef fort, even in 

the de vel oped parts of the world, has been di - 

rected to ward un der stand ing, let alone quan ti - 

fy ing, the so cial ben e fits (in de pend ent of eco - 

nomic ben e fits) of sci ence and tech nol ogy. In 

this con text, the em pha sis that the Kelkar 

Com mit tee’s terms of ref er ence place on de ter - 

min ing the so cial ef fec tive ness of CSIR makes 

its con sti tu tion a land mark in the his tory of 

both CSIR and In dian sci ence. 

Fur ther, if there is one el e ment of the In dian 

sci en tific en ter prise that has re ceived un flinch - 

ing crit i cism from civil so ci ety, it is the in ad e - 

quacy of its so cial rel e vance. An ef fort to quan - 

tify and for mu late ideas to im prove the so cial 

rel e vance and im pact of one—al beit large— 

quar ter of In dia’s sci en tific en ter prise is a huge 

step in the right di rec tion. 

Equally sig nif i cant is the ex plicit em pha sis 

in the terms of ref er ence to de vel op ing per for - 

mance in di ca tors ap pro pri ate for eval u at ing 

pub licly funded R&D or ga ni za tions (such as 

CSIR). Im plicit in that em pha sis is the re al iza - 

tion of CSIR’s re spon si bil ity for di rect ing pre - 

cious pub lic re sources for pub lic good. There 

are few pub licly funded in sti tu tions in con tem - 

po rary In dia that seem to re flect that con cern 

and re spon si bil ity through their ac tiv i ties. 

Hav ing said that, the au thors strongly be - 

lieve that the is sues that the Kelkar Com mit tee 

will need to ex am ine are so ex ten sive in 

breadth and mo men tous in philo soph i cal im - 

port that its re port is only the be gin ning. It is 

also im por tant to en sure that this Com mit tee 

will not be a sol i tary ef fort but rather a cat a lyst 

for a sys temic ef fort to con tin u ally eval u ate re - 

search pro grams for so cial ben e fits in CSIR 

and even tu ally all In dian sci en tific in sti tu - 

tions. In broad philo soph i cal terms, the Kelkar 

Com mit tee is an ef fort to fur ther “de moc ra - 

tize” sci ence and tech nol ogy by in clud ing so - 

cial per for mance in di ca tors. The chal lenges of 

putt ing In dia’s pub lic re sources to good use 

will only in crease in the fu ture and a de moc ra - 

ti za tion of that pro cess in sci ence will stand in 

good stead. 

REFERENCES 


89

Advani, A. H. (1999) “Ed i to rial,” Busi ness In dia (June Rajagopal, N. R., M. A. Qureshi, and B. Singh. (1991) 

28-July 11): 1. 

The CSIR Saga. New Delhi, In dia: Pub li ca tions and In - 

formation Directorate. 

Coun cil of Sci en tific and In dus trial Re search. (1999) 

Salter, Am mon J., and Ben R. Mar tin. (2001) “The Eco - 

“An nual Re port: 1998–99,” New Delhi, In dia: Coun cil 

nomic Ben e fits of Pub licly-funded Re search: A Crit i cal 

of Sci en tific and In dus trial Re search. 

Review,” Research Policy 30 no. 3: 509–32. 

Coun cil of Sci en tific and In dus trial Re search. (2003) Sejnowski, Terrence J. (2003) “Tap into Sci ence 24–7,” 

“Terms of Ref er ence for the Kelkar Com mit tee” (July Science 301: 601. 

30). 

Turaga, U. (2000) “Dis cov er ies to Div i dends: Trans form - 

Laugksch, R. C. (2000) “Sci en tific Lit er acy: A Con cep - ing the Mindset at CSIR,” Chem i cal In no va tion 30 no. 

tual Over view,” Sci en tific Ed u ca tion 84 no. 1: 71–94. 8: 43–49. 

Turaga, U.T. (2003) “Outsourcing R&D,” Chem i cal En - 

Lis bon Eu ro pean Coun cil Pres i dency Con clu sions. 

gi neer ing Prog ress 98, no. 9:5. 

(2000) Avail able on line: http://europa.eu.int/ 

Wolfe Da vid A., and Am mon Salter. (1997) “The Socioeco 

nomic Im por tance of Sci en tific Re search to Can - 

european_council/index_en.htm (March). 

Papon, P. (2003) “A Chal lenge for the EU,” Science 301: ada,” dis cus sion pa per, The Part ner ship Group for Sci - 

565. 

ence and Engineering, Canada. 

AC KNOWL EDG MENTS 

This pa per bene fited ex ten sively from the ad vice, time, 

wis dom, and en cour age ment of Carl Mit cham (Col o - 

rado School of Mines, Golden, Col o rado), Dan iel 

Sarewitz (Cen ter for Sci ence, Pol icy, and Out comes, 

Wash ing ton, DC), Barry Bozeman (Geor gia In sti tute of 

Tech nol ogy), and Rob ert Pielke (Uni ver sity of Col o - 

rado, Boul der). The au thors are grate ful to Vijay Kelkar 

(Min is try of Fi nance, Gov ern ment of In dia) for the in vi - 

ta tion (and thus, his con fi dence in the au thors) to con - 

trib ute an ad vi sory pa per to help set the agenda of the 

com mit tee be ing chaired by him. 


90

SCI ENCE POL ICY IN ITS SO CIAL CON TEXT 

Dan iel Sarewitz, Guillermo Foladori, Noela Invernizzi 

and Michele S. Garfinkel 

Pub lic sup port of sci ence is jus ti fied by 

three pri mary in stru men tal ra tio nales: sci en - 

tific ad vance is nec es sary to cre ate new wealth; 

sci en tific ad vance is nec es sary to solve par tic - 

u lar so ci etal prob lems; and sci en tific ad vance 

pro vides the in for ma tion nec es sary for mak ing 

ef fec tive de ci sions. Sig nif i cant and per sis tent 

dis par i ties be tween prom ise and performance 

accompany each of these rationales. 

Our ar gu ment is that these dis par i ties in part 

re flect sci ence pol icy de ci sions made with out 

ad e quate con sid er ation of broader so cial con - 

texts. To ex plain this point, we pres ent an il lus - 

tra tive ex am ple for each ra tio nale. We then dis - 

cuss some ap proaches to more ef fec tive 

contextualization of sci ence pol icy de ci sions. 

Such ap proaches could im prove the ca pac ity 

of sci ence pol icy to achieve de sired so cial out - 

comes, and re duce the po ten tial for and mag ni - 

tude of neg a tive out comes. Fail ing this, they 

could at least cre ate more re al is tic ex pec ta - 

tions and un der stand ings of the roles, and 

limits, of science in society. 

What Sci ence Pol icy Is 

Sci ence pol icy is the de ci sion pro cess 

through which in di vid u als and in sti tu tions al - 

lo cate and or ga nize the in tel lec tual and fis cal 

re sources that en able the con duct of sci en tific 

re search. The prox i mate con se quence of sci - 

ence pol icy in the U.S. fed eral gov ern ment is 

the $118 bil lion that was spent in 2003 on pub - 

licly funded re search and de vel op ment (R&D) 

en ter prise (AAAS, 2004). On a global ba sis, 

gov ern ment sci ence pol icy de ci sions are re - 

spon si ble for the al lo ca tion of per haps three 

times this amount (OECD, 2003). Through 

these ex pen di tures, sci ence pol icy de ci sions 

are a powerful catalyst for social and economic 

change. 

Sci ence pol icy in the United States fed eral 

gov ern ment is car ried out at many lev els and in 

many or ga ni za tions, rang ing from the Of fice 

of Man age ment and Bud get in the White 

House, to man ag ers of in di vid ual pro grams in 

fed eral agen cies, to mem bers of Con gress who 

sit on rel e vant com mit tees. Par tic i pants in the 

pol icy pro cess in clude not just elected of fi cials 

and bu reau crats, but sci en tists and a broad 

range of cit i zen stake holders. There is, there - 

fore, no uni fied sci ence pol icy pro cess, but it is 

con cep tu ally use ful to think about a sci ence 

pol icy as the ag gre gate of the decisions that are 

made in these many policy venues. 

Pub lic fund ing for sci ence is jus ti fied pri - 

mar ily on the ba sis of an tic i pated and spec i fied 

so ci etal ben e fits. The foun da tional case, and 

Amer ica’s most im por tant sci ence pol icy doc - 

u ment, is Vannevar Bush’s Sci ence—the End - 

less Fron tier (1945), which stated, for ex am - 

ple, that “ad vances in sci ence will also bring 

higher stan dards of liv ing, will lead to the pre - 

ven tion or cure of dis eases, will pro mote con - 

ser va tion of our lim ited na tional re sources, 

and will as sure means of defense against 

aggression” (9). 

Bush’s com pel ling rhet o ric helped set the 

stage in sub se quent de cades for the av a lanche 

of prom ises made on be half of pub lic sci ence 

by a va ri ety of gov ern ment agen cies and sci - 

ence ad vo cacy groups. Pro mo tion of “ba sic” 

re search fo cuses on ex pand ing the res er voir of 

knowl edge as a ba sis for solv ing a broad range 

of prob lems. “Di rected” ba sic and ap plied re - 

search are jus ti fied for their po ten tial to solve 

par tic u lar prob lems. But in all cases, it is the 

prom ise of con crete so cial ben e fits that ra tio - 

nal izes the de mand for pub lic sup port of sci - 

ence, and mo ti vates sci ence pol icy mak ing. 

For ex am ple, a May 2004 ad ver tise ment in the 

Wash ing ton Post ad vo cat ing more fed eral sup - 

port for un di rected, ba sic re search none the less 

con nects such re search to spe cific, ben e fi cial 

ap pli ca tions: “Re search in Ba sic Sci ence 

Brings In no va tions that Im prove our Lives . . . 

Like So lar En ergy” (Uni ver sity Re search As - 

so ci a tion, Inc., 2004). The un stated as sump - 

tion in such as ser tions is that the so ci etal ben e - 

fits of sci ence are in her ent in the sci ence itself. 

Indeed, the idea that social benefit resides in 

science is the foundation of modern science 

policy dogma. 

Sci en tific ad vance, how ever, is usu ally ac - 

com pa nied by a range of so ci etal out comes. 

For ex am ple, sci ence-based tech no log i cal in - 


91

no va tion, of fered as the key to eco nomic 

growth in mod ern so ci ety, is also im pli cated in 

in creased con cen tra tion of global wealth and 

grad ual but pro gres sive dis en fran chise ment of 

the man u fac tur ing workforce. In the United 

States, a re cent man i fes ta tion of this dis en fran - 

chise ment is the so-called “job less re cov ery” 

where mea sur able out puts have in creased on a 

per-worker basis, without concomitant 

increases in employment. 

This range of out comes might be most ap - 

par ent in med i cine. Bio med i cal re search is 

funded at ro bust and rap idly in creas ing lev els 

be cause of the ex pec ta tion that it will cure 

some dis eases and pre vent oth ers. Mean while, 

in fec tious dis eases are re sur gent through out 

the world, and the ris ing costs of health care in 

af flu ent coun tries are fast out strip ping the ca - 

pa bil ity of so ci ety to pay for them. In the area 

of the en vi ron ment, bil lions are spent each 

year on re search aimed at re duc ing un cer tain - 

ties and clar i fy ing po lit i cal op tions for ad - 

dress ing the chal lenge of global cli mate 

change, yet a po lit i cal so lu tion to the prob lem 

remains out of reach, and climate impacts 

continue to mount. 

Our point is cer tainly not that sci ence is the 

“cause” of such com plex and of ten par a dox i - 

cal out comes, but that sci ence is only one 

among many in ter twined causes. His tor i cally, 

this com plex and at ten u ated cou pling be tween 

the con duct of sci ence and the out comes of sci - 

ence in so ci ety has been the foun da tion of a 

cen tral claim of sci ence pol icy—that nei ther 

the course of sci ence, which be gins with the 

un fet tered ex plo ra tion of fun da men tal phe - 

nom ena of na ture, nor its use by and out comes 

in so ci ety, can be pre dicted in de tail and far in 

ad vance (e.g., Bush, 1945; Com mit tee on Sci - 

ence, En gi neer ing, and Public Policy, 1993; 

House Committee on Science, 1998). 

This claim is ac com pa nied by an other, 

more sub tle but om ni pres ent one: that ben e fits 

flow more or less au to mat i cally and in ev i ta bly 

from re search, and are thus in her ent in the pro - 

cess of knowl edge pro duc tion it self. Un de sir - 

able out comes are the con se quences of fac tors 

ex trin sic to the sci ence. To gether these two 

claims jus tify sci ence pol i cies that fo cus on en - 

sur ing the health of an au ton o mous sci en tific 

en ter prise as mea sured by cri te ria in ter nal to 

that en ter prise, such as lev els of fund ing, pro - 

duc tion of pa pers, pat ents, Ph.Ds and No bel 

prizes, and the op er a tion of qual ity con trol 

mech a nisms, such as peer re view, that as sure 

the health and ef fec tive ness of, in Mi chael 

Polanyi’s mem o ra ble term, “The Re pub lic of 

Sci ence” (Polanyi, 1962; see also Wein berg, 

1963; Panel on Sci en tific Re spon si bil ity, 

1992). The in ter nal health of the en ter prise 

guar an tees the ex ter nal ben e fits to so ci ety. The 

met rics of health in clude out puts (e.g., pat ents, 

pub li ca tions), but not outcomes (Sarewitz, 

1996). 

Econ o mists of sci ence and tech nol ogy have 

made mod est strides in eval u at ing the eco - 

nomic rate of re turn on pub lic in vest ments in 

sci ence, which ap par ently are sig nif i cant (e.g., 

Griliches, 1995) but such work in ev i ta bly re in - 

forces the ten dency to ward un der stand ing sci - 

ence only in terms of its ben e fits. Anal y sis and 

tools that seek to un der stand and as sess the 

con nec tions be tween sci ence pol icy de ci sions 

and non-eco nomic so cial out comes are vir tu - 

ally ab sent from both sci ence pol icy schol ar - 

ship and prac tice. Sci ence pol icy dogma ren - 

ders such ef forts both im pos si ble (due to the 

un pre dict abil ity of out comes) and 

unnecessary (due to the automatic nature of 

benefits). 

If, how ever, the out comes of sci ence are de - 

ter mined or co-de ter mined by fac tors ex trin sic 

to sci ence, then no de fen si ble claim can be 

made about pu ta tive ben e fits (or, for that mat - 

ter, det ri men tal ef fects) based solely on the at - 

trib utes of the re search and the in ter nal op er a - 

tions of the sci ence en ter prise. Sci ence is 

al ways ap plied within a broader prob lem con - 

text. Put some what dif fer ently, when it co mes 

to so cial prob lems, sci ence can not solve any - 

thing; sci ence works within a broader set of so - 

cial, cul tural, po lit i cal, and eco nomic con di - 

tions in con trib ut ing to so lu tions and 

prob lems. While schol ar ship in the area of sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy stud ies has doc u mented 

from many per spec tives this con tex tual 

embeddedness of sci ence (e.g., Jasanoff et al., 

1995), the ques tion of what this embeddedness 

im plies for the re la tions be tween sci ence pol - 

icy de ci sions and spe cific so cial out comes has 

been gen er ally neglected (but see, e.g., Lyall et 

al., 2004; and Bozeman and Sarewitz, in 

press). 

Any claim that sci ence will lead to a par tic - 

u lar so cial out come—pos i tive or neg a tive— 

should be viewed with sus pi cion. But most sci - 

ence pol i cies are jus ti fied solely on the claim 

of ben e fit, are ad vo cated largely in terms of the 

re source needs of the re search en ter prise, and 

are ad vanced with lit tle con sid er ation of broad 


92

so cial con text. Given the com plex link ages be - 

tween re search in puts and so cial out comes, 

such pol i cies should not be ex pected to ful fill 

spe cific prom ises, and should be ex pected to 

yield unexpected and contradictory outcomes. 

To more fully ex plain our ar gu ment, we 

now briefly dis cuss com plex out comes as so ci - 

ated with the three pri mary in stru men tal ra tio - 

nales of sci ence pol icy: cre at ing wealth; solv - 

ing so ci etal prob lems; and pro vid ing 

in for ma tion for de ci sion mak ing. We fo cus, re - 

spec tively, on the ex am ples of wealth dis tri bu - 

tion, health out comes in de vel op ing nations, 

and global climate change. 

Sci ence and the Cre ation of Wealth: 

Innovation and Inequality 

If there is a core prem ise for na tional in vest - 

ments in sci ence, it is the prom ise of widely 

dis trib uted eco nomic ben e fit. Wrote Vannevar 

Bush: 

One of our hopes is that af ter [World War II] 

there will be full em ploy ment. . . . To cre ate 

more jobs we must make new and better and 

cheaper prod ucts. We want plenty of new, vig - 

or ous en ter prises. But new prod ucts and pro - 

cesses are not born full-grown. They are 

founded on new prin ci ples and new con cep tions 

which in turn re sult from ba sic sci en tific re - 

search. (1945, 6) 

Con sider, for in stance, the case of 

nanoscience and nanotechnology, a new re - 

search area that has at tracted hun dreds of mil - 

lions of dol lars in pub lic in vest ment. The de - 

vel op ment of nanotechnology is sup posed to 

al low in dus try to cre ate lim it less sup plies of 

prod ucts with re duced costs, end ing the de - 

pend ency on tra di tional raw ma te ri als and lim - 

it ing en vi ron men tal im pact. More over, 

nanotechnology is con sid ered the core of the 

next in dus trial rev o lu tion in both the post-in - 

dus trial and the in dus tri al iz ing worlds (In ter - 

agency Working Group, 1999; Mantel, 2003; 

Garcia, 2004). 

The idea of eco nomic growth as a di rect 

con se quence of in vest ments in ba sic sci ence 

(via tech no log i cal in no va tion based on that 

sci ence) be came dom i nant af ter WWII. Dur - 

ing the 1980s, how ever, the re la tion ship be - 

tween sci ence, in no va tion and eco nomic per - 

for mance started to be an a lyzed through more 

com plex, non lin ear ap proaches in spired by 

econ o mist Jo seph Schumpeter´s the ory of in - 

no va tion (Dosi et al., 1988; Nel son, 1993; and 

Free man and Soete, 1997). From this per spec - 

tive, the eco nomic per for mance of na tions can 

be un der stood in terms of na tional “in no va tion 

sys tems,” and the cre ation and use of new 

knowl edge can be rec og nized as the fuel for 

such sys tems (Mowery and Rosenberg, 1993; 

Odigari and Oto, 1993; Nel son, 2000; Kim, 

2001; Gabriele, 2003). These con nec tions jus - 

tify a gen eral com mit ment to pub licly funded 

sci ence, es pe cially sci ence that, how ever “ba - 

sic,” has some po ten tial link to in no va tion and 

technology development (House Committee 

on Science, 1998; and Stokes, 1997). 

How ever, the ex pe ri ence of the past 30 or 

more years shows that the phe nom e non of sci - 

ence- and tech nol ogy-based eco nomic growth 

seems to be ac com pa nied by in creas ing in - 

equal ity in dis tri bu tion of eco nomic ben e fits 

(No ble, 1995; Lesinger, 2002; Arocena and 

Senker, 2003; and World Bank, 2004). This in - 

equal ity ap pears on nu mer ous fronts, in clud - 

ing high un em ploy ment and un der em ploy - 

ment rates, per sis tent lev els of pov erty, and 

soar ing con cen tra tion of wealth, each of which 

are ap par ent both within na tions and be tween 

na tions on a global ba sis, even as global wealth 

con tin ues to grow (Sen, 1997; Castells, 2000; 

US Cen sus, 2000; Wade, 2001; inequality.org, 

2003; and ILO, 2004). 

The cur rent em ploy ment sit u a tion, for ex - 

am ple, stands in strik ing con trast with the 

prom ises of a better qual ity of life that in vest - 

ment in sci ence and in no va tion would al low. 

The ILO es ti mates 185.9 mil lion un em ployed 

world wide in 2003, the high est level ever re - 

corded (ILO, 2004, 9). Al though the sit u a tion 

is es pe cially bad in less de vel oped coun tries, 

all highly in dus tri al ized na tions have ex pe ri - 

enced high unemployment rates since the 

1970s. 

The causes of un em ploy ment are com plex 

and mul ti fac eted, and cer tainly in clude eco - 

nomic slow down and pop u la tion in crease. The 

con nec tions be tween un em ploy ment and sci - 

ence-and-tech nol ogy-based in no va tion is a 

par tic u larly con tro ver sial is sue (Kaplinsky, 

1987; Mattoso, 2000; and Hatch and Clinton, 

2000), but in creases in pro duc tiv ity brought 

about by new tech nol o gies and new pro duc - 

tion prac tices is a cen tral at trib ute of in no va - 

tion and wealth cre ation (Fig ure 1). In the U.S., 

an ob vi ous con se quence in some man u fac tur - 

ing sec tors, such as tex tiles, ap parel, and heavy 


93

ma chin ery, has been ab so lute re duc tion of em - 

ploy ment (Hatch and Clinton, 2000). Even 

new and dy namic in dus tries such as in for ma - 

tion and com mu ni ca tion tech nol ogy, which 

had been cre at ing new jobs dur ing the 1980s 

and 1990s, are ex pected to de mand fewer jobs 

in the first de cade of the 2000s, ac cord ing to 

U.S. Bu reau of La bor Sta tis tics em ploy ment 

pro jec tions (BLS, 2004). Sig nif i cant shifts in 

the char ac ter of em ploy ment is part of the 

same pro cess, with lower-skilled jobs in the 

high-pay ing man u fac tur ing sec tor giv ing way 

to lower-pay ing ser vice sec tor jobs (USDOL, 

2003; Amer i can Pros pect 2003; and Bellamy 

Fos ter et al., 2004). In de vel op ing coun tries 

such as those of Latin Amer ica, in dus try ef - 

forts to adapt to new pro duc tion and com pet i - 

tive ness con di tions dur ing the last twenty 

years have also had adverse consequences on 

employment (Katz, 2001; Delgado Wise and 

Invernizzi, 2002; and Invernizzi, 2004). 

The global pro lif er a tion of sci en tific and 

tech no log i cal ca pac ity has not been suf fi cient 

to quell the growth of eco nomic in equal ity. In - 

deed, at the global scale, ris ing con cen tra tion 

of na tional wealth has been a cen tral el e ment 

of eco nomic de vel op ment for 300 years, cor re - 

lat ing strongly with con cen tra tion of tech ni cal 

ca pac ity. Be tween 1960 and the end of the 

1990s, the in come gap be tween the top and 

bot tom twenty per cent of world pop u la tion 

more than dou bled, in creas ing from 30:1 to 

74:1 (Leisenger, 2002). 

Sci ence and tech nol ogy pol icy are ob vi - 

ously not them selves di rectly re spon si ble for 

ris ing in equal ity or un em ploy ment—but nei - 

ther are they di rectly re spon si ble for eco nomic 

growth. Need less to say, pub lic in vest ments in 

sci ence and tech nol ogy are jus ti fied on the ba - 

sis of prom ised growth, not on the ba sis of an - 

tic i pated fu ture in creases in un em ploy ment 

and wealth dis par ity—al though em ploy ers 

have of ten adopted new tech nol o gies with the 

ex plicit in tent of re duc ing the num ber of their 

em ploy ees (e.g., No ble, 1986). Our point is 

that while such out comes have been ac com pa - 

ny ing the ad vance of knowl edge and in no va - 

tion, sci ence pol icy de ci sion pro cesses have 

con sis tently failed to con sider their im pli ca - 

tions. In no va tion pol icy con tin ues to fo cus on 

in no va tion per se, con sid er ing it as an in her - 

ently and ex clu sively pos i tive con trib u tor to 

eco nomic and so cial de vel op ment, and failing 

to consider the implications of persistent, 

adverse social outcomes for policy design. 

Science and Problem-Solving: 

Med i cal Re search and Global Health 

The moral cri sis cre ated by in eq ui ta ble ac - 

cess to AIDS drugs is per haps the ar che typal 

ex am ple of how the prom ise of sci ence in ter - 

acts with the real world to cre ate com plex out - 

comes. More than 90 per cent of AIDS suf fer ers 

world wide can not af ford the life-sav ing treat - 

ments avail able to pa tients in af flu ent countries 

(UNAIDS/WHO, 2002). 

The prob lem partly re flects how R&D ac tiv - 

i ties are par ti tioned in so ci ety, with fun da men - 

tal re search typ i cally sup ported by pub lic 


94

funds and ap plied re search and de vel op ment 

in creas ingly the re spon si bil ity of the pri vate 

sec tor (Kettler & Towse, 2001). Be cause cor - 

po ra tions must re cover their R&D in vest ments 

and re ward their stock hold ers, they fo cus on 

prob lems with high po ten tial re turns, charge 

what the mar ket will bear for prod ucts, and of - 

ten pro tect them with pat ents. They also de - 

velop prod ucts ap pro pri ate to the healthcare 

in fra struc ture of high-tech societies (MSF/ 

DND, 2001). 

Ef forts to broaden ac cess to AIDS drugs 

have fo cused on of fer ing ge neric prod ucts at 

re duced prices to poor coun tries, es pe cially in 

Af rica (MSF, 2003; and Vedantam, 2004). In 

other cases, no ta bly Brazil, in-coun try ge neric 

drug pro duc tion in vi o la tion of in tel lec tual 

prop erty re gimes has been cho sen to in crease 

dis tri bu tional eq uity. Un der po lit i cal pres sure, 

large phar ma ceu ti cal cor po ra tions have agreed 

to lower prices in Third World Coun tries such 

as Brazil (Bermudez et al., 2002). 

We note, how ever, that these re ac tions 

come fif teen years af ter ma jor pub lic re search 

in vest ments were first stim u lated by the rapid 

in crease in AIDS in ci dence world wide, and 

that they are un likely to save the lives of most 

AIDS suf fer ers in the world to day. Could dif - 

fer ent sci ence pol i cies have led to better 

outcomes? 

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in biomed 

i cal re search have re cently emerged as a 

new mech a nism for fund ing sci ence aimed at 

the health prob lems of de vel op ing coun tries. 

PPPs are non-profit or ga ni za tions whose par - 

tic i pants may in clude phar ma ceu ti cal com pa - 

nies, na tional and in ter na tional pub lic in sti tu - 

tions, char i ta ble foun da tions, and other 

nongovernmental or ga ni za tions in ter ested in 

global pub lic health. Do na tions from foun da - 

tions, gov ern ments, and in ter na tional or ga ni - 

za tions sub si dize the sci en tific ca pa bil i ties of 

cor po ra tions to ad dress prob lems that the pri - 

vate sec tor would oth er wise ig nore, such as 

drugs and vac cines for trop i cal dis eases. PPPs 

also al low greater flex i bil ity in pric ing and dis - 

tri bu tion pol i cies for re search prod ucts. Over 

ninety-one health PPPs are now in op er a tion, 

in clud ing the In ter na tional AIDS Vac cine Ini - 

tia tive, Roll Back Malaria, and the Global 

Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations 

(Foladori, 2003a; and 2003b). 

PPPs, in other words, are a sci ence pol icy 

in no va tion aimed at push ing R&D in di rec - 

tions it would not go us ing more con ven tional 

pol icy ap proaches. They re spond to a global 

con text in which the prom ise of bio med i cal 

sci ence can only be re deemed by a small per - 

cent age of peo ple in the world. Yet PPPs only 

in ter nal ize one el e ment of that con text—lack 

of mar ket in cen tives in small un der de vel oped 

coun tries. Phar ma ceu ti cal cor po ra tions will 

not al low large de vel op ing mar kets such as 

China, Brazil or In dia to ben e fit from the part - 

ner ships. They still re flect an ap proach to sci - 

ence and tech nol ogy that treats re search prod - 

ucts as the func tional equiv a lent of prob lem 

so lu tions. They do not ad dress the un der ly ing 

causes of dis ease in the de vel op ing world, nor 

do they nec es sar ily separate themselves from 

the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. 

Even in the case of pre ven tive ef forts, such 

as R&D on vac cines, PPPs are in ter ested in 

new vac cines (e.g., Hep a ti tis B), while con tin - 

u ing to ne glect im mu ni za tion against dis eases 

for which vac cines have ex isted for years 

(LSHTM, et al., 2002; and Hardon, 2001). 

This trend is en cour aged be cause PPPs gen er - 

ally hold pat ents on the prod ucts they pro duce 

and can thus cre ate self-sus tain ing rev e nue by 

in vent ing new prod ucts. Sim i larly, par tic i pat - 

ing phar ma ceu ti cal com pa nies may gain tax 

ben e fits, op por tu ni ties to cre ate and open new 

mar kets, in for ma tion and re sults from other 

com pa nies col lab o rat ing in the PPP, and ad di - 

tional sup port for R&D from the PPP (Kettler 

and White, 2003). In to tal, the PPPs and the 

col lab o rat ing cor po ra tions ben e fit more from 

in vent ing new vac cines than from dis sem i nat - 

ing old ones. More over, the use of pat ents as an 

in cen tive for cor po ra tions to par tic i pate in 

PPPs privatizes bio med i cal re search re sults 

that are paid for with non-pri vate funds, and 

thus may re duce pub lic ac cess to knowl edge 

that should ar gu ably be a pub lic good. Even in 

cases where PPPs are not seek ing pat ents, they 

are still abid ing by in ter na tional pat ent agree - 

ments that limit the con di tions un der which 

ge neric drugs can be sold in de vel op ing coun - 

tries, and thus limit access of poor people to 

existing treatments. Table 1 summarizes 

various arguments for and against PPPs. 

The his tor i cal re la tion ship be tween dis ease 

and de vel op ment shows that the di rec tion of 

cau sa tion typ i cally runs from eco nomic de vel - 

op ment and eq uity to im proved health, and not 

the other way around. The de cline of most ma - 

jor in fec tious dis eases in west ern coun tries co - 

in cides with im prove ments in in fra struc ture 

and stan dard of liv ing. Ef fec tive med i cal in ter - 


95

Item 

R&D Orientation 

Re duce Risk & 

Increase Resoures 

Sustainability 

Argument in Favor of 

PPPs 

PPPs could deal with ne glected 

diseses for less de vel oped coun - 

tries. For the pub lic sec tor it will 

be more costly and inefficent too 

de velop skills on F&D that phar - 

ma ceu ti cal cor po ra tions 

(pharma) al ready have. 

PPPs could lower the risk of 

R&D. The World Health Or ga ni - 

za tion (WHO) needs to in crease 

its bud get and PPPs raises 

funds. 

Concerns Authors 

Pharma will only particpate on new 

Ev ans, T, 2001 

drugs or vac cines that would be 

pat ented. Old in fec tious dis eases Hardon, 2001 

with out pat ents could reemerge. Orbinski, 2001 

Ben e fits will only reach less de vel - Han cock, 1998 

oped coun tries with no mar ket. 

Pharma will not per mit low prices to 

reach im por tant mar kets such as 

In dia, brazil, or China. Poor peo ple 

from de vel oped coun tries will not be 

con sid ered. Pub lic R&"D had 

hsitorically benn ca pa ble of pro duc - 

ing vac cines and new drugs (po lio, 

can cer, men in gi tis), or rep li cat ing 

oth ers (AIDS). 

No body is ac count able for PPPs 

Pollock et al, 2002 

out comes. Share hold ers do not par - 

tic i pate in de ci sions. Some stud ies Kettler & Towse, 2001 

show an in crease in costs of PPPs. 

Lob-Levyt, 2001 

There are other ways than phi lan - 

thropy to deal with R&D, such as 

Orbinski, 2001 

tax a tion, pub lic pro duc tion and dis - Walt, 2000 

tri bu tion. R&D on drugs and vac - 

Han cock, 1998 

cines need a long term bud get. It is 

Muraskin, 2002 

doubt ful if PPPs could be sus tained 

by do na tions; still push & pull mech - 

a nisms will be needed. The WHO 

splits world health pol i cies into sev - 

eral PPPs, which raises doubts 

about ef fi ciency. 

Mutual Confidence Be - 

tween U.N. and Cor po - 

rations 

PPPs rep re sent the way to ad - 

dress health prob lems 

His tory shows cor po ra tions have 

used the U.N. for pri vate in ter ests. 

The U.N can not mon i tor cor po rate 

re spon si bil ity. There is a hid den 

agenda for cor po ra tions: po lit i cal in - 

flu ence, set the global pub lic 

agenda, en hance le git i macy, pro - 

mote im age, mar ket pen e tra tion. 

Boseley, 2003 

Ollila, 2003 

Rich ter, 2003 

Dukes, 2002 

Yamey, 2002 

Buse & Waxman, 2001 


Is There an Al ter na tive 

to PPPs? 

PPPs rep re sent the way to ad - 

dress health prob lems 

PPPs will only deal with dis eases of 

pharma in ter ests. 1/4 of PPPs are 

for AIDS and for less de vel oped 

coun tries. There are al ter na tives: 

pub lic R&D and de liv ery of med i - 

cine and vac cines. 

Ollila, 2003 

Rich ter, 2003 

Muraskin, 2002 

Vakhovskiy, 2001 


Ta ble 1 

ven tions have usu ally ar rived af ter dis ease in - 

ci dences were al ready on the de cline (Dub lin, 

1948; McKeown, 1988; and Delarue, 1980). 

Con versely, ma jor im prove ments in life ex pec - 

tancy in many of the poor est coun tries in the 

world have not translated into commensurate 

increases in standard of living. 

These com plex re la tions sug gest that PPPs 

will nei ther be able to re verse the grow ing pub - 

lic health cri sis in many de vel op ing coun tries, 

nor cat a lyze eco nomic growth: ex treme in eq - 

ui ties in wealth dis tri bu tion in many de vel op - 

ing coun tries are likely to keep peo ple mired in 

both pov erty and dis ease. This re la tion ship is 


96

viv idly il lus trated by the work of an thro pol o - 

gist Pe ter Brown (1987), who tested the hy - 

poth e sis that ma laria was block ing eco nomic 

de vel op ment on the is land of Sar dinia in the 

pe riod af ter World War II. He con cluded that 

the “macroparasitism” of land own ers drained 

thirty per cent of the pro duc tion ca pac ity from 

peas ants in the form of rents, while the 

“microparasitism” of ma laria ac counted for 

less than ten per cent re duc tion in their gross 

pro duc tion. The ef fects of so cial re la tions 

were at least three times greater than the effects 

of the disease. 

Fi nally, PPPs re flect a char ity-based model 

of de vel op ment aid that does not fos ter in - 

creased tech no log i cal ca pac ity among de vel - 

op ing coun tries. PPPs may suc cess fully de - 

velop drugs and vac cines that can save lives. 

But they are un likely to ma te ri ally im prove the 

lot of the poor est na tions. Un der typ i cal con di - 

tions suf fered by com mu ni ties in pov erty, even 

if a dis ease is elim i nated, a new one is likely to 

take its place (Ev ans et al., 1991). Sci ence pol i - 

cies de signed with out aware ness of this 

context are unlikely to fulfill their promise. 

Sci ence and De ci sion Mak ing: The Im - 

pacts of Cli mate Change 

Global cli mate change has emerged over 

the past sev eral de cades as a gal va niz ing en vi - 

ron men tal is sue that pres ents enor mous chal - 

lenges for de ci sion mak ers across a va ri ety of 

so ci etal ac tiv i ties rang ing from ag ri cul ture and 

en ergy to pub lic health and safety. Given the 

com plex i ties and un cer tain ties in volved, de ci - 

sion mak ers have turned to sci ence to pro vide 

in for ma tion that can guide ef fec tive ac tion, and 

most re search has fo cused on un der stand ing 

the dy nam ics of cli mate be hav ior and char ac - 

ter iz ing the causes and fu ture of cli mate 

change. Pol icy de bate, in turn, has fo cused on 

the prob lem of mit i gat ing po ten tial hu man dis - 

rup tion of the climate system, especially 

through reduced emissions of greenhouse 

gases. 

The foun da tional sci ence pol icy claim here 

is that re search on cli mate will en able better 

de ci sions through en hanced un der stand ing of 

cli mate func tion and re duced un cer tainty 

about fu ture cli mate be hav ior (e.g., Cli mate 

Change Sci ence Pro gram, 2003). The idea, of 

course, is that sci en tific un der stand ing of cli - 

mate change is the ap pro pri ate ba sis for ef fec - 

tive ac tion, be cause ac tion must be rooted, first 

and fore most, in a fac tual un der stand ing of the 

world. This idea is fur ther rooted in the be lief 

that such ap pro pri ate ac tion can lead to the 

con trol of fu ture cli mate be hav ior, and through 

such con trol, the re duc tion of ad verse cli mate 

im pacts on so ci ety. This line of ar gu ment has 

thus far jus ti fied on the or der of twenty bil lion 

dol lars of re search in the U.S. alone. How ever, 

it is fair to say that, be yond the in tense dip lo - 

matic and po lit i cal ac tiv ity sur round ing the ne - 

go ti a tion of the Kyoto Pro to col and re lated 

trea ties, lit tle prog ress has been made to ward 

re duc ing green house gas emis sions. More im - 

por tantly, this path has led to virtually no 

progress on reducing the negative impacts of 

climate on society. 

For ex am ple, the pros pect of cli mate change 

stim u lates the con cern that chang ing weather 

and cli mate pat terns will re sult in greater dis - 

rup tion to so ci ety, es pe cially in the de vel op ing 

world (e.g., Mc Car thy et al., 2001). In this con - 

text, con sider the cat a strophic con se quences of 

Hur ri cane Mitch in 1999, which in cluded more 

than 10,000 deaths in Nic a ra gua and Hon du - 

ras, as well as the vir tual de struc tion of those 

na tions’ econ o mies and a sub se quent chol era 

out break (Alvarez et al., 2001). As a weather 

phe nom e non, hur ri cane Mitch was not un prec - 

e dented. Its dire con se quences grew out of the 

vul ner a bil ity of the im pov er ished so ci et ies that 

lay in its path, with their dense pop u la tions, 

poor in fra struc ture, un reg u lated de vel op ment, 

ram pant en vi ron men tal deg ra da tion, and in ef - 


97

fec tive re sponse ca pa bil i ties. No amount of 

un der stand ing of the fu ture of cli mate be hav - 

ior can change those causal fac tors. In deed, the 

cur rent state-of-the-sci ence sug gests that, in 

the com ing de cades, de mo graphic and so cio - 

eco nomic changes are likely to be twenty to 

sixty times more im por tant in con trib ut ing to 

economic losses from hurricanes and 

typhoons than climate change (Figure 2; and 

Pielke et al., 2000). 

Sim i lar ar gu ments ap ply to other an tic i - 

pated ar eas of cli mate change im pact. For ex - 

am ple, cli mate change may in flu ence pat terns 

of pre cip i ta tion and evap o ra tion, but pop u la - 

tion growth and other sources of grow ing wa - 

ter con sump tion ap pear to be much more sig - 

nif i cant driv ers of wa ter re source de ple tion 

than global warm ing (e.g., Vorosmarty et al., 

2000). In the arena of pub lic health, cli mate 

change is sug gested as a pos si ble cause for the 

spread of nor mally trop i cal dis eases into tem - 

per ate cli mates. Yet given the well-doc u - 

mented so cio eco nomic or i gins of most se vere 

in fec tious dis eases, not to men tion the fact that 

such dis eases al ready af fect mil lions through - 

out the world, it seems im plau si ble that re duc - 

ing cli mate change could be an ef fi cient path to 

con trol ling in fec tious dis ease. Over all, re duc - 

ing the hu man in flu ence on cli mate be hav ior is 

an ex tremely in di rect way to con front the 

many prob lems that are of ten at trib uted to cli - 

mate change. More over, given the com plex i - 

ties of both cli mate and so ci ety, it will never be 

pos si ble to de ter mine how changes in, say, 

greenhouse gas emissions translate, via 

changing climate behavior, into beneficial 

social impacts. 

This is not to ar gue against emis sions re duc - 

tions. Cer tainly it would be wise to min i mize 

the po ten tial for hu man-in duced changes in 

cli mate be hav ior. But the logic that un der lies 

cli mate sci ence pol icy as serts a causal chain 

that is im plau si ble: from sci en tific un der stand - 

ing on cli mate, to ap pro pri ate ac tion (that over - 

comes en trenched vested in ter ests) on emis - 

sions re duc tion, to ben e fi cial con se quences in 

terms of con trol ling cli mate im pacts. Mean - 

while, since the 1970s, U.S. pub lic and pri vate 

in vest ment in en ergy R&D has de clined by al - 

most two-thirds, in real dol lars (En ergy Re - 

search Agency, 2001). This is an in cred i ble 

coun ter point to the bil lions spent on cli mate 

change re search, and is prima fa cia ev i dence 

for the fail ure, even on its own terms, of cli - 

mate sci ence pol icy. This fail ure strongly re - 

flects the power, and dan ger, of a sci ence pol - 

icy dogma that as serts that more sci en tific un - 

der stand ing must lead to more so ci etal ben e fit, 

and thus al lows prob lems rooted in 

socioeconomics and politics to be redefined as 

agendas for scientific research. 

Toward a Contextual Foundation 

for Sci ence Pol icy 

Any claim that a par tic u lar sci en tific re - 

search or tech nol ogy de vel op ment pro gram 

will lead to a par tic u lar so cial out come re duces 

a com plex so cial prob lem to a sci ence pol icy 

prob lem. Sci ence and tech nol ogy can not cor - 

rectly be thought of as the start ing point of a 

causal chain lead ing to a par tic u lar spec i fied 

so cial out come; rather, they must be un der - 

stood as el e ments of a com plex context from 

which outcomes emerge. 

If this is cor rect, then con ven tional ra tio - 

nales for sci ence pol icy as a pro cess of al lo cat - 

ing re sources for the cre ation of knowl edge 

and in no va tion make no sense. Ei ther the claim 

that par tic u lar sci ence in vest ments will lead to 

par tic u lar so cial ben e fits must be aban doned 

as in co her ent, or sci ence pol icy de ci sion mak - 

ing in gen eral must be in formed by a much 

deeper un der stand ing of the con texts within 

which so cial prob lems de velop and can be 

con fronted. The first al ter na tive is not po lit i - 

cally vi a ble be cause to give up on the claim of 

par tic u lar ben e fits would as sur edly un der mine 

the claim to the pub lic re sources upon which 

sci ence de pends. The sec ond al ter na tive seems 

to de mand an an a lyt i cal breadth that real world 

pol icy mak ing is un likely to be able to achieve 

and from which it is unlikely to be able to 

benefit. 

A third pos si bil ity would be to ex tend the 

no tion of sci ence pol icy it self to give equal 

weight to the pro cesses of knowl edge cre ation 

and use. The the o ret i cal ba sis for this 

reconceptualization is by now well-es tab - 

lished, and rests on two ideas: first, that on go - 

ing com mu ni ca tion be tween the pro duc ers and 

us ers of knowl edge and tech nol ogy can help 

cre ate more con cor dance be tween what re - 

search pro duces and what us ers need; and sec - 

ond, that the out comes of new knowl edge or 

tech nol ogy strongly re flect the ca pac i ties of 

those who are us ing them. Schol ar ship in the 

eco nom ics of in no va tion and the so cial dy - 

nam ics of sci ence has greatly ex panded un der - 

stand ing of sci en tific re search as a so cially em - 


98

ed ded pro cess, and of the prod ucts of 

re search as there fore coproduced by sci ence 

and so ci ety (e.g., Jasanoff, 1996; and Wynne, 

1991). Case-based stud ies of tech no log i cal in - 

no va tion show per va sive and con tin ual feed - 

backs among knowl edge cre ation, tech no log i - 

cal evo lu tion, po lit i cal de ci sion-mak ing, and 

the mar ket place (e.g., Leslie, 1993; 

Rosenberg, 1994; and Nel son, 2000). Broad - 

en ing the con stit u en cies who par tic i pate in sci - 

ence pol icy de ci sions has been of fered by 

schol ars as one way of better con nect ing de ci - 

sions about re search to de sired out comes (e.g., 

Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992). Ex am ples from 

ar eas of re search as di verse as biomedicine, 

ag ri cul ture, com puter tech nol o gies, and nat u - 

ral haz ards shows that for mal and in for mal 

par tic i pa tory pro cesses can in crease mu tual 

un der stand ing among sci en tists and the po ten - 

tial us ers of the prod ucts of sci ence, in flu enc - 

ing research paths and product development in 

ways that better meet user needs (e.g., Epstein, 

1996; von Hippel, 1988; Cash, 2000; and 

Sarewitz et al., 2000). 

De mand ing equal sta tus for knowl edge cre - 

ation and knowl edge use in sci ence pol icy 

turns the stan dard pol icy dogma on its head in 

two re lated ways. First, it rec og nizes that the 

tra jec to ries of knowl edge cre ation are not 

given by na ture it self, or re vealed through un - 

fet tered sci en tific in quiry, but rather are a con - 

se quence of many in flu ences, some in ter nal to, 

and oth ers ex ter nal to, the for mal sci en tific re - 

search en ter prise (e.g., Kitcher, 2001). Sec - 

ond, it lo cates the value and util ity of sci en tific 

re search in those who can make use of its re - 

sults, rather than in the results themselves. 

These two in sights can be operationalized 

in sci ence pol icy by means of a fairly sim ple 

con cep tual in no va tion. The ca pac ity of a 

group of peo ple or an or ga ni za tion to use 

knowl edge ef fec tively to achieve de sired out - 

comes can be un der stood as a “so cial tech nol - 

ogy,” an es sen tial coun ter part to the “hard” or 

“phys i cal” tech nol o gies and for mal ized 

knowl edge that are viewed as the stan dard out - 

puts of re search. So cial tech nol o gies can be 

seen as em body ing the “know-how” that in - 

cor po rates avail able re sources (in clud ing 

phys i cal tech nol o gies) to achieve a goal (Nel - 

son and Sampat, 2001), as well as the value 

sys tems that in form and guide ac tion (Si mon, 

1997). The global erad i ca tion of small pox re - 

quired both ef fec tive, mass pro duc tion of 

freeze-dried vac cines, and sur veil lance and 

con tain ment strat e gies that al lowed out breaks 

to be iden ti fied, iso lated, and treated. The for - 

mer, phys i cal tech nol ogy was nei ther more nor 

less cru cial than the lat ter, so cial tech nol ogy 

(Hopkins, 1989). In con sid er ing the three ex - 

am ples sketched above, each is char ac ter ized 

by a fo cus on phys i cal tech nol o gies, and a rel a - 

tive ne glect of the so cial tech nol o gies and 

value sys tems—the ca pa bil i ties of us ers—that 

de ter mine if and how the phys i cal tech nol o - 

gies will be used. In terms of sci en tific and 

tech no log i cal out puts, each ex am ple may be— 

and com monly is—considered to be a 

resounding science policy success. In terms of 

social outcomes, however, each bears scars of 

ongoing failure. 

El e vat ing so cial tech nol o gies to the same 

level of sig nif i cance as phys i cal tech nol o gies 

does im pose an ad di tional an a lyt i cal bur den 

on sci ence pol icy mak ers: they must un der - 

stand not only the in sti tu tions and ac tors who 

con duct the re search that they fund, but also 

the in sti tu tions and ac tors who might (or might 

not) use this in for ma tion. Yet, just as sci ence 

pol icy de ci sions help to cre ate new re search 

in sti tu tions, fields, and com mu ni ties through 

fund ing mech a nisms, so might they more rou - 

tinely seek to cre ate the so cial tech nol o gies 

that can help turn knowl edge and tech nol ogy 

into out comes. This was pre cisely the in tent of 

the Smith-Le ver Act of 1914, which cre ated 

the co op er a tive ex ten sion ser vice—a so cial 

tech nol ogy—to en hance com mu ni ca tion be - 

tween farm ers and re search ers. Sev enty-five 

years later, man u fac tur ing ex ten sion ser vices 

were cre ated by the U.S. gov ern ment to help 

en sure that small busi nesses are better linked 

to tech no log i cal in no va tors (PL 100–418, 

1988). But in gen eral sci ence pol icy de ci sion 

mak ing has not been in the busi ness of en cour - 

ag ing the so cial technologies that help steer 

the creation and use of knowledge and 

physical technology toward desired outcomes. 

New eval u a tion pro ce dures must also be de - 

vised to test the ca pac ity of re search pro grams 

to achieve stip u lated out comes. Amaz ingly, no 

such pro ce dures are well de vel oped. This ne - 

glect is in part an ac knowl edg ment of the dif fi - 

culty of the task, yet so lit tle ef fort has been ap - 

plied to this end that it would be pre ma ture to 

sug gest use ful tools can not be pro duced. One 

pre lim i nary ef fort by Catherine Lyall et al. 

(2004) pres ents a model of the in ter ac tions be - 

tween re search pro duc ers and us ers that asks 

sys tem atic, ret ro spec tive ques tions about 


99

com mu ni ca tion, end-user needs, up take of re - 

sults, and gen eral rel e vance of re sults, to as sess 

ac tual so cial im pacts of re search ac tiv i ties. 

An other early ef fort, termed Pub lic Value 

Map ping (PVM; Bozeman, 2003), would use a 

case-based ap proach to as sess, pro spec tively, 

the assumptions imbedded in claims about the 

outcomes of research. PVM asks: 

Given a set of so cial goals and mis sions, ones in 

which sci ence is in tended to play a ma jor role in 

bring ing about de sired so cial out comes, are the 

strat e gies for link ing and mo bi liz ing in sti tu - 

tions, net work ac tors and in di vid u als vi a ble 

ones? Is the un der ly ing causal logic of pro gram 

or mis sion sound? Are the hu man, or ga ni za - 

tional, and fi nan cial re sources in place to move 

from sci ence and re search to ap pli ca tion to 

desired social outcome? (Bozeman, 2003) 

If such ques tions can not be an swered, how can 

any rea son able claim be made that a re search 

in vest ment or pro gram will lead to a par tic u lar 

benefit? 

The over all point is that it is not ter ri bly dif - 

fi cult to con cep tu al ize meth ods for better un - 

der stand ing how knowl edge pro duc tion and 

phys i cal tech nol o gies re late to knowl edge us - 

ers and so cial tech nol o gies, and that such re la - 

tions may of ten be a strong proxy for so cial 

out comes. But such work is in its infancy. 

Any ef fort to un der stand the sources of fail - 

ure in the three sci ence pol icy cases out lined 

above would quickly fo cus on the role of so - 

cially and eco nom i cally dis en fran chised pop - 

u la tions. Such pop u la tions are ill-po si tioned to 

take ad van tage of em ploy ment op por tu ni ties 

in the high-tech nol ogy, ultracompetitive mar - 

ket place, nor are they able to af ford the prod - 

ucts of that mar ket place in ad dress ing their 

health prob lems, nor is the knowl edge de vel - 

oped about cli mate be hav ior able to mit i gate 

their vul ner a bil ity to cli mate and weather phe - 

nom ena. The req ui site so cial tech nol o gies are 

ab sent. We are back to our orig i nal ques tion: If 

sci ence is pro moted for its abil ity to cre ate pos - 

i tive out comes, yet such out comes are de ter - 

mined by fac tors extrinsic to science, on what 

basis can the promise of benefits be made? 

The ques tion now yields a fourth way we 

might reconceptualize sci ence pol icy: as one 

com po nent in a port fo lio of pol icy ap proaches 

for con front ing a so cial prob lem. By start ing 

with a care ful de lin ea tion of the prob lem to be 

solved or the out come to be pur sued, a num ber 

of dif fer ent, al though per haps closely re lated, 

pol icy paths might be iden ti fied, one or more 

of which would be sci en tific re search. By 

view ing sci ence along with other ap proaches, 

the con tex tual embeddedness of sci ence pol - 

icy de ci sions would be come more ap par ent. 

Re vis it ing the ex am ple of the ma laria-blocksde 

vel op ment hy poth e sis, pro moted now a days 

by the Com mis sion on Mac ro eco nom ics of the 

World Health Or ga ni za tion, if the de sired out - 

come is eco nomic growth, then one pol icy path 

would be elim i na tion of ma laria, but an other 

surely would be re form of land ten ure pat terns, 

mar kets asym me tries, etc. In com par ing these 

two ap proaches, it might be de cided that elim i - 

nat ing ma laria is more prac ti ca ble, but it would 

also be clear that this would not likely yield the 

eco nomic re sult that is prom ised by an 

approach to science policy that views the 

malaria vaccine itself as an economic 

instrument. 

When par tic u lar so cial out comes are 

sought, sci ence pol icy de ci sions might ap pro - 

pri ately be con sid ered along side other types of 

pol icy de ci sions. Trade offs might well be ap - 

pro pri ate. The in sti tu tional ob sta cles to such a 

pro cess are sig nif i cant, be cause sci ence pol icy 

de ci sion mak ing is, by de sign, of ten iso lated 

within par tic u lar agen cies and or ga ni za tions 

of gov ern ment. Yet it is not very hard to vi su al - 

ize de ci sion tools that could at the very least 

cre ate the pos si bil ity of a discourse that 

contextualizes science policy. 

For ex am ple, Garfinkel and oth ers (in re - 

view) have de vel oped a pro to type “so ci etal 

out comes map for health re search and pol icy” 

to il lus trate the var i ous el e ments that con trib - 

ute to a par tic u lar de sired health out come. 

Such a map al lows stake holders to vi su al ize al - 

ter na tive path ways, trade-offs, and op tions 

that might be cho sen in pur suit of an out come. 

In the pro to type map, which con sid ers the is - 

sue of perinatal health and the de sired out come 

of healthy ba bies, pol icy paths in clude pro - 

grams to im prove nu tri tion for preg nant 

women, screen the new born for dis eases, and 

con duct re search on the causes of birth de fects 

(Fig ure 3). All of these, of course, may be 

worth pur su ing, but un der stand ing and com - 

par ing what is known about the costs, ben e fits, 

track re cord, and po ten tials of each can al low 

choices to be con sid ered that are not available 

in the decontextualized science policy 

environment today. 


100

fig ure 3? 

The ide ol ogy of sci ence pol icy de rives di - 

rectly from an ide ol ogy of sci ence it self where 

sci en tists are viewed as com pris ing an au ton o - 

mous re pub lic whose con duct and gov er nance 

is largely an in ter nal mat ter, ap pro pri ately car - 

ried out in iso la tion from other so ci etal ac tiv i - 

ties. When this ideo log i cal foun da tion is com - 

bined with the be lief that ben e fits ac crue 

in ev i ta bly and au to mat i cally from the cre ation 

of knowl edge and in no va tion, a strong case 

can be made that sci ence pol icy de ci sions need 

not be par tic u larly sen si tive to or aware of the 

so cial con text within which knowl edge and in - 

no va tion are used. But spe cific ex am ples of the 

fail ure of sci ence pol icy de ci sions to achieve 

prom ised so cial out comes, as well as a rich 

body of the o ret i cal and em pir i cal work show - 

ing the com plex feed backs among the pro duc - 

tion of knowl edge and in no va tion, their use, 

and so cial out comes, strongly ar gue for a more 

con tex tu ally aware sci ence pol icy pro cess than 

cur rently op er ates in most set tings. Some tools 

and meth ods that can en able this 

contextualization are be gin ning to be tested. 

And much can be learned from a variety of at 

least partial successes in such outcomefocused 

areas of science as agriculture and 

public health. 

REFERENCES 

AAAS. (2004) Guide to R&D Fund ing Data—To tal U.S. 

R&D (1953–2004). Avail able from http:// 

www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.htm ac cessed June 10, 

2004. 

Alvarez, Ricardo, Bruce Baird, Amelia Estrada, Vin cent 

Gawronski, and Juan Pablo Sarmiento Prieto. (2001) 

The Storms of ‘98: Hur ri canes Geor ges and Mitch - Im - 

pacts, In sti tu tional Re sponse, and Di sas ter Pol i tics in 

Three Coun tries. Boul der, CO: Nat u ral Haz ards Cen ter, 

Uni ver sity of Col o rado, Spe cial Publication no. 38. 

Amer i can Pros pect. (2003) Amer i can Pros pect Spe cial 

Re port on Low-wage Amer ica (De cem ber 17). Avail - 

able from http://www.movingideas.org/issuesindepth/ 

lowwage.html ac cessed April 18, 2004. 

Arocena, R., and Senker, P. (2003) “Tech nol ogy, In equal - 

ity and Un der de vel op ment: The Case of Latin Amer - 

ica,” Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and Hu man Val ues 28 no. 1: 

15–33. 

Bairoch, Paul. (1993) Eco nom ics and World Histor 

Myths and Par a doxes. Chi cago: The Uni ver sity of Chi - 

cago Press. 

Bairoch, Paul and C. Levy-Le boyer. (1981) Disparities in 

Eco nomic De vel op ment. New York: St. Mar tin’s. 

Bellamy Fos ter, John, Harry Magdoff, and Rob ert 

McChesney. (2004) “The Stag na tion of Em ploy ment,” 

Monthly Re view 55 no. 11. Avail able from http:// 

www.monthlyreview.org/0404editors.htm ac cessed 

April 25, 2004. 

Bermudez, J., R. Epsztejn, M. A. Oliveira, and L. 

Hasenclever. (2002) Ac cess to Drugs, the WTO TRIPS 

Agree ment, and Pat ent Pro tec tion in Brazil: Trends, 

Per spec tives, and Rec om men da tions to Help Find Our 

Way. MSF/DND Work ing Group. 

Boseley, S. (2003) “WHO ‘In fil trated by Food In dus try,’” 

Guard ian, (Jan u ary 9). 

Bozeman, B. (2003) Pub lic Value Map ping of Sci ence 

Out comes: The ory and Method. Avail able from http:// 


101

www.cspo.org/prod ucts/knowledgeflows 

.html ac cessed April 30, 2004. 

Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. (in press) “Pub lic Value 

Fail ures and Sci ence Pol icy,” Sci ence and Pub lic Pol icy. 

Brenner, Rob ert. (2003) “To wards the Prec i pice,” Lon - 

don Re view of Books 25 no. 3. Avail able from http:// 

www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n03/bren01_.html ac cessed Oc to - 

ber 3, 2003. 

Brown, P. J. (1987) “Micro para sites and Macroparasites,” 

Cul tural an thro pol ogy 2 no. 1: 155–71. 

Bu reau of La bor Sta tis tics (BLS). (2004) Oc cu pa tional 

Out look Hand book. Avail able from http:// 

www.flp.bls.gov/pub.news.re lease/ooh.txt ac cessed 

April 25, 2004. 

Buse, K., and A. Waxman. (2001) “Pub lic-pri vate Health 

Part ner ships: A Strat egy for WHO,” Bulletin of the 

World Health Or ga ni za tion 79 no. 8: 748–54. 

Bush, Vannevar. (1945) Sci ence—the End less Fron tier. 

Wash ing ton DC: Na tional Sci ence Foun da tion. 

Cash, Da vid W. (2000) “In Or der to Aid in Dif fus ing Use - 

ful and Prac ti cal In for ma tion . . . : Cross-scale Bound ary 

Or ga ni za tions and Ag ri cul tural Ex ten sion. Belfer Cen - 

ter for Sci ence and In ter na tional Af fairs (BCSIA),” dis - 

cus sion pa per 2000–10 (Sep tem ber). Cam bridge: 

Ken nedy School of Government, Harvard University. 

Castells, Manuel. (2000) End of Mil len nium. Malden, 

MA: Blackwell. 

Cli mate Change Sci ence Pro gram. (2003) Stra te gic Plan 

for the U.S. Cli mate Change Sci ence Pro gram. Wash - 

ing ton DC: US Cli mate Change Sci ence Program. 

Com mit tee on Sci ence, En gi neer ing, and Pub lic Pol icy. 

(1993) Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and the Fed eral Gov ern - 

ment: Na tional Goals for a New Era. Wash ing ton DC: 

Na tional Academy Press. 

Delarue, F. (1977) L’intoxication Vaccinale. Paris: Seuil. 

Delgado Wise R., and N. Invernizzi. (2002) “México y 

Corea del Sur: Claroscuros del Crecimiento Export a dor 

en el Contexto del Globalismo Neoliberal,” Aportes. 

Revista Mexicana de Estudios sobre la Cuenca del 

Pacífico 2 no. 4: 63–86. 

Dosi, G. et al., eds. (1988) Tech ni cal Change and the Eco - 

nomic The ory. New York: Pinter. 

Dub lin, L. (1948) Health Prog ress 1936–1945. New 

York: New York Met ro pol i tan Life In sur ance Co. 

Dukes, M. N.G. (2002) “Ac count abil ity of the Phar ma - 

ceu ti cal In dus try,” Lan cet 360 no. 23: 1682–84. 

En ergy In for ma tion Agency. (2001) Re new able En ergy 

2000: Is sues and Trends. Wash ing ton, DC: U.S. Dept. 

of En ergy. Avail able from http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

cneaf/so lar.renewables/rea_is sues/reatabp1.html 

Ep stein, Ste ven. (1996) Im pure Sci ence: AIDS, Ac tiv ism, 

and the Pol i tics of Knowl edge. Berke ley: Uni ver sity of 

Cal i for nia Press. 

Ev ans, R., M. Barer, and T. Marmor, eds. (1994) Why Are 

Some Peo ple Healthy and Oth ers Not? The De ter mi - 

nants of Health of Pop u la tions. New York: Al dine de 

Gruyter. 

Foladori, Guillermo. (2003a) “La Privatización de la 

Salud: El Caso de la In du stria Farmacéutica,” Revista 

Internacional de Sociología 34: 33–64. 

Foladori, Guillermo. (2003b) “Las Asociaciones 

Publico-privadas en Salud y el Resurgimiento de las 

Enfermedades Infecciosas,” Revista Saude e Ambiente, 

Health and En vi ron ment Jour nal 4 no. 1: 12–18. 

Free man, Chris, and Luc Soete. (1994) Work for All or 

Mass Unemployment? Computerised Technical Change 

into the Twenty-first Cen tury. Lon don: Pinter. 

Free man, Chris, and Luc Soete. (1997) The Eco nom ics of 

In dus trial In no va tion. Cam bridge: MIT Press. 

Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz. (1992) “Three Types of 

Risk As sess ment and the Emer gence of Post-Nor mal 

Sci ence,” in S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds. So cial 

The o ries of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger), 251–73. 

Gabriele, Alberto. (2002) “S&T Pol i cies and Tech ni cal 

Prog ress in China’s In dus try,” Re view of In ter na tional 

Po lit i cal Econ omy 9 no. 2: 333–73. 

Gar cia, Eloi S. (2004) “Nanociência: Contribuição para o 

Debate,” Jornal da Ciência on line, no. 2473. Avail able 

from http://www.jornaldaciencia.org.br ac cessed 

March 1, 2004. 

Garfinkle, M.S., D. Sarewitz, and A. Por ter (in re view). 

“A So ci etal Out comes Map for Health Re search and 

Pol icy,” Re search Pol icy. 

Griliches, Z. (1995) “R&D Pro duc tiv ity: Ec ono met ric 

Re sults and Mea sure ment Is sues,” in S. Paul, ed. The 

Hand book of the Eco nom ics of In no va tion and Tech no - 

log i cal Change (Ox ford: Blackwell), 52–89. 

Han cock, T. (1998) “Ca veat Part ner: Re flec tions on Part - 

ner ship with the Pri vate Sec tor,” Health Pro mo tion In - 

ter na tional 13 no. 3: 193–95. 

Hardon, A. (2001) “Im mu ni za tion for All? A Crit i cal 

Look at the First GAVI Part ners Meet ing,” Health Ac - 

tion In ter na tional (HAI-Lights), Hai Eu rope, 6, no. 1. 


102

Avail able from http://www.haiweb.org/pubs/hailights/ 

mar2001/mar01_lead.html ac cessed De cem ber 30, 

2002. 

Hatch, J., and A. Clinton. (2000) “Job Growth in the 

1990s: A Ret ro spect,” Monthly La bor Re view” (De cem - 

ber): 3–18. 

Hopkins, J.W. (1989) The Erad i ca tion of Small pox: Or - 

ga ni za tional Learn ing and In no va tion in In ter na tional 

Health. Boul der, CO: Westview. 

House Com mit tee on Sci ence. (1998) Un lock ing our Fu - 

ture: To ward a New Na tional Sci ence Pol icy. A Re port 

to Con gress. Avail able from http://www.house.gov/sci - 

ence/sci ence_pol icy_report.htm 

Ilg, Randy, and Ste ven Haugen. (2000) “Earn ings and 

Em ploy ment Trends in the 1990s,” Monthly La bor Re - 

view (March): 21–33. 

In equal ity.org. (2003) http://www.in equal ity.org ac - 

cessed Sep tem ber 15, 2003. 

In ter agency Work ing Group on Nanoscience, En gi neer - 

ing, and Tech nol ogy. (1999) Nanotechnology: Shap ing 

the World Atom by Atom. Wash ing ton DC: Na tional Sci - 

ence and Tech nol ogy Council. 

In ter na tional La bour Or ga ni za tion (ILO). (2003) ILO 

Re port on Global Em ploy ment Trends. Avail able from 

http://www.ilo.org/pub lic/eng lish/bu reau/inf/pr/2003/ 

1.htm ac cessed March 5, 2004. 

Invernizzi, Noela. (2004) Flexibles y Productivos. Los 

Impactos de la Reestructuración Productiva Sobre el 

Trabajo en Brasil. México: M.A. Porrúa, (forth com - 

ing). 

Jasanoff, S., G. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds. 

(1995) Hand book of Sci ence and Tech nol ogy Stud ies. 

Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Jasanoff, Sheila. (1996) “Be yond Epis te mol ogy: Rel a tiv - 

ism and En gage ment in the Pol i tics of Sci ence,” So cial 

Stud ies of Sci ence 26 no. 2: 393–418. 

Kaplinsky, Ra phael. (1987) Mi cro-Elec tron ics and Em - 

ploy ment Re vis ited: A Re view. Geneva: In ter na tional 

La bour Or ga ni za tion. 

Katz, Jorge. (2001) “Cambios en la Estructura y 

Comportamiento del Aparato Productivo 

Latinoamericano en los Años 1990: Después del 

Consenso de Wash ing ton, ¿qué?,” in Gabriela Dutrénit, 

et al., eds. Sistema Nacional de Innovación: Temas para 

el De bate en México (Mex ico: Universidad Autónoma 

Metropolitana), 45–84. 

Kettler, H., and A. Towse. (2001) “Pub lic Pri vate Part ner - 

ships,” Com mis sion on Mac ro eco nom ics and Health, 

work ing pa per se ries. no. WG2 (21). 

Kettler, H., K. White, and S. Jor dan. (2003) Val u ing In - 

dus try Con tri bu tions to Pub lic-Pri vate Part ner ships for 

Health Prod uct De vel op ment. Geneva: Ini tia tive on 

Pub lic-Pri vate Part ner ships for Health. Global Fo rum 

for Health Research. 

Kim, Linsu. (2001) “The Dy nam ics of Tech no log i cal 

Learn ing in In dus tri al iza tion,” In ter na tional So cial Sci - 

ence Jour nal 53: 297–308. 



Lepkowski, Wil. (1992) “Sci ence-Tech nol ogy Pol icy 

Seems Set for New Di rec tions in Clinton Era,” Chemi - 

cal and En gi neer ing News (De cem ber 7): 7–14. 

Lesinger, Klaus. (2002) From Global In equal i ties to - 

wards a Hu mane World, 1 st 

Di a logue on Sci ence, 

Engelberg, Swit zer land (Oc to ber 23–25). 

Leslie, S.W. (1993) The Cold War and Amer i can Sci ence: 

The Mil i tary-In dus trial-Ac a demic Com plex at MIT and 

Stan ford. New York: Co lum bia Uni ver sity Press. 

Lob-Levyt, J. (2001) “A Do nor Per spec tive: Round Ta ble 

Dis cus sion,” Bul le tin of the World Health Or ga ni za tion 

79 no. 8: 771–77. 

Lon don School of Hy giene and Trop i cal Med i cine 

(LSHTM), M. Star ling, R. Brugha, G. Walt, A. Heaton, 

and R. Keith. (2002) New Prod ucts into Old Sys tems: 

The Global Al li ance for Vac cines and Im mu ni za tion 

(GAVI) From a Coun try Per spec tive. Lon don: Save the 

Children Fund. 

Lyall, C., A. Bruce, J. Firn, M. Firn, and J. Tait. (2004) 

“As sess ing End-use Rel e vance of Pub lic Sec tor Re - 

search Or ga ni za tions,” Re search Pol icy 33 no. 1: 73–87. 

Man tel, Katie. (2003) “De vel op ing Na tions Must Wise 

Up to Nanotechnology,” SciDevNet News http:// 

www.scidev.net ac cessed Sep tem ber 1, 2003. 

Mattoso, Jorge. (2000) “Tecnologia e Emprego: Uma 

Relação Conflituosa,” São Paulo em Perspectiva 14 no. 

3: 115–23. 

Mc Car thy, J., O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken, and K. 

White, eds. (2001) Cli mate Change 2001: Im pacts, Ad - 

ap ta tion, and Vul ner a bil ity. Cam bridge: Cam bridge 


McKeown, T. (1988) The Or i gins of Hu man Dis ease. Ox - 

ford: Oxford University Press. 


103

Medecins Sans Fron tiers (MSF)/Drugs for Ne glected 

Dis eases Work ing Group (DND). (2001) Fa tal Im bal - 

ance: The Cri sis in Re search and De vel op ment for 

Drugs for Ne glected Dis eases. Geneva: Medicins Sans 

Fron tiers. Avail able from http://www.msf.org 

Medecins Sans Fron tiers (MSF). (2003) Un tan gling the 

Web of Price Re duc tion: A Pric ing Guide for the Pur - 

chase of ARVs for De vel op ing Coun tries. Avail able 

from http://www.accessmed-msf.org/doc u ments/ 

untangling4thapril2003.pdf 

Mowery, Da vid, and Na than Rosenberg. (1993) “The US 

Na tional In no va tion Sys tem,” in R. Nel son, ed. Na tional 

In no va tion Sys tems: A Com par a tive Anal y sis (Ox ford: 

Ox ford Uni ver sity Press), 29–75. 

Muraskin, W. (2002) “The Last Years of the CVI and the 

Birth of the GAVI,” in M. Reich, ed. Pub lic-Pri vate 

Part ner ships for Pub lic Health (Cam bridge: Har vard 

Uni ver sity Press), 113–68. 

Nel son, R., ed. (1993) Na tional In no va tion Sys tems: A 

Com par a tive Anal y sis. Ox ford: Ox ford Uni ver sity 

Press. 

Nel son, R. N. (2000) The Sources of Eco nomic Growth. 

Cam bridge: Har vard Uni ver sity Press. 

Nel son, R., and B. Sampat. (2001) “Mak ing Sense of In - 

sti tu tions as a Fac tor in Eco nomic Growth,” Jour nal of 

Eco nomic Or ga ni za tion and Be hav ior 44: 31–54. 

Nel son, Rich ard. (2000) The Sources of Eco nomic 

Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Noble, David. (1986) Forces of Pro duc tion: A So cial His - 

tory of In dus trial In no va tion. New York: Ox ford Uni - 

versity Press. 

No ble, Da vid. (1995) Prog ress with out Peo ple: New 

Technology, Unemployment and the Message of Resistance. 

To ronto: Be tween the Lines. 

Odagiri, Hiroyuki, and Akira Goto. (1993) “The Jap a nese 

Sys tem of In no va tion,” in R. Nel son, ed. Na tional In no - 

va tion Sys tems: A Com par a tive Anal y sis (Ox ford: Ox - 

ford Uni ver sity Press), 76–114. 

Ollila, E. (2003) “Health-re lated Pub lic-pri vate Part ner - 

ships and the United Na tions,” in B. Dea con, E. Ollila, 

M. Koivusato, and P. Stubbs, eds. Global So cial Gov er - 

nance (Min is try for For eign Af fairs of Fin land. De part - 

ment for In ter na tional De vel op ment Co op er a tion). 

Avail able from http://www.gaspp.org/pub li ca tions/ 

accessed April 10, 2003. 

Orbinski, J. (2001) “Mar ket En tice ments Are Not 

Enough: Round Ta ble Dis cus sion,” Bul le tin of the 

World Health Or ga ni za tion” 79 no. 8: 771–77. 

Or ga ni za tion for Eco nomic Co op er a tion and De vel op - 

ment (OECD). (2003) Main Sci ence and Tech nol ogy 

In di ca tors Avail able from http://www.oecd.org/doc u - 

ment/26/0,2340,en_2825_497105_1901082_ 

119656_1_1_1,00.html ac cessed April 30, 2004. 

Panel on Sci en tific Re spon si bil ity and the Con duct of Re - 

search. (1992) Re spon si ble Sci ence: En sur ing the In teg - 

rity of the Re search Pro cess. Wash ing ton, DC: Na tional 

Academy Press. 

Pielke Jr., R.A., R.A. Klein, and D. Sarewitz. (2000) 

“Turn ing the Big Knob: An Eval u a tion of the Use of En - 

ergy Pol icy to Mod u late Fu ture Cli mate Im pacts,” En - 

ergy and En vi ron ment 11: 255–76. 

Polanyi, Mi chael. (1962) “The Re pub lic of Sci ence: Its 

Po lit i cal and Eco nomic The ory,” Mi nerva (Au tumn): 

54–73. 

Pollock, A., J. Shaoul, and N. Vickers. (2002) “Pri vate Fi - 

nance and “Value for Money” in NHS Hos pi tals: A Pol - 

icy in Search of a Ra tio nale?” Brit ish Med i cal Jour nal 

324: 1205–09. 

Rich ter, J. (2003) “We the Peo ples” or “We the Cor po ra - 

tions”? Crit i cal Re flec tions on UN-busi ness “Part ner - 

ships.” Geneva: In ter na tional Baby Food Ac tion 

Net work (IBFAN) and Geneva In fant Feed ing As so ci a - 

tion (GIFA). Avail able from http://www.ibfan.org http:/ 

/www.gifa.org ac cessed February 23, 2003. 

Rosenberg, Na than. (1994) Ex plor ing the Black Box: 

Tech nol ogy, Eco nom ics, and His tory. Cam bridge: Cam - 

bridge University Press. 

Sarewitz, Dan iel. (1996) Frontiers of Illusion: Science, 

Tech nol ogy, and the Pol i tics of Prog ress. Philadelphia: 

Temple University Press. 

Sarewitz, D., R.A. Pielke, Jr., and R. Byerly, Jr., eds. 

(2000) Pre dic tion: Sci ence, De ci sion Mak ing, and the 

Fu ture of Na ture. Covelo: Is land Press. 

Sen, Amartya. (1997) “In equal ity, Un em ploy ment and 

Con tem po rary Eu rope,” In ter na tional La bour Re view 

135 no. 2: 158–65. 

Si mon, Her bert A. (1997) Ad min is tra tive Be hav ior. (4th 

ed.) New York: Free Press. 

Sorrentino, Con stance, and Joyanna Moy. (2002) “US 

Labor Market Performance in International Perspective,” 

Monthly La bor Re view (June): 15–35. 


104

Stokes, Don ald. (1997) Pas teur’s Quad rant: Ba sic Sci - 

ence and Tech no log i cal In no va tion. Wash ing ton DC: 

Brookings In sti tute Press. 

United Ac tions Programme on HIV/AIDS and World 

Health Or ga ni za tion (UNAIDS/WHO). (2002) AIDS 

Ep i demic Up date De cem ber 2002. UNAIDS/02.46E . 

Avail able from http://www.unaids.org/worldaidsday/ 

2002/press/up date/epiupdate2002_en.doc 

United States Cen sus. (2000) http://www.cen sus.gov ac - 

cessed Sep tem ber 20, 2003. 

United States De part ment of La bor (USDOL). (2003) 

Na tional Com pen sa tion Sur vey: Oc cu pa tional Wages in 

the United States. Bulletion 2552, US De part ment of 

La bor. Avail able from http://www.dol.gov ac cessed 

April 20, 2004. 

Vakhovskiy, A. (2001) “Win ning the War on AIDS, 

Brazil Style,” Dartmouth Free Press, (Oc to ber 8). 

Avail able from http://www.uwire.com/con tent/ 

topops081001001.html ac cessed De cem ber 18, 2002. 

Vedantam, S. (2004) “Co ali tion Ex pands AIDS Drug 

Plan,” Wash ing ton Post, (April 5): A1. 

von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of In no va tion. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

Vörösmarty, C.J., P. Green, J. Salis bury, and R.B. 

Lammers. (2000) “Global Wa ter Re sources: Vul ner a - 

bil ity from Cli mate Change and Pop u la tion Growth,” 

Science 289: 284–88. 

Wade, Rob ert. (2001) “Win ners and Los ers,” The Econ o - 

mist (April 26). 

Walt, G. (2000) Pub lic Pri vate Part ner ships: Ad dress ing 

Pub lic Health Needs or Cor po rate Agen das? Re port on 

the Health Ac tion In ter na tional Eu rope/ 

Bundeskoordination Internationalismus (HAI Eu rope/ 

BUKO) Pharma-Kampagne Sem i nar (No vem ber 3), 

HAI Europe. 

University Research Association, Inc. (2004) “Research 

in Ba sic Sci ence Brings In no va tions that Im prove our 

Lives,” Wash ing ton Post (May 19), A16. 

Wein berg, Alvin M. (1963) “Cri te ria for Sci en tific 

Choice,” Minerva (Win ter), 159–71. 

Weller, Chris tian E., and Adam Hersh. (2002) “Free Mar - 

kets and Pov erty,” The American Prospect 13 no. 1: 13– 

15. Avail able from http://www.pros pect.org/web/ 

page.ww?section=root&name= 

ViewPrint&articleId=6087 ac cessed Jun 29, 2002. 

World Bank. (2003) In equal ity in Latin Amer ica and the 

Ca rib bean: Break ing with His tory? Avail able from 

http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/lacinfoclient.nsf/ 

d2968495114975c85256735 

007fef12/32d7c0bacee5752a85256dba00545d3f/ 

$FILE/Inequality%20in%20Latin%20America 

%20-%20complete.pdf ac cessed March 2, 2004. 

World Bank. (2004) World De vel op ment Re port. Avail - 

able from http://econ.worldbank.org/wdr/wdr2004/; 

ac cessed April 20, 2004. 

Wynne, Brian. (1991) “Knowledges in Con text,” Sci ence, 

Tech nol ogy and Hu man Val ues 16 no. 1: 111–21. 

Yamey, G. (2001) “Global Cam paign to Erad i cate Ma - 

laria,” Brit ish Med i cal Jour nal 322: 1191–92. 

Yamey, G. (2002) “WHO in 2002: Fal ter ing Steps to - 

wards Part ner ships,” Brit ish Med i cal Jour nal 325: 

1236–40. 


105

REL E VANT BUT NOT PRE SCRIP TIVE? 

SCI ENCE POL ICY MOD ELS WITHIN THE IPCC 

Alison Shaw and John Rob in son 

Founded by the World Me te o ro log i cal Or - 

ga ni za tion (WMO) and the United Na tions En - 

vi ron ment Programme (UNEP) in 1988, the 

In ter gov ern men tal Panel on Cli mate Change 

(IPCC) is en gaged in a unique sci en tific as - 

sess ment pro cess. Not only is the IPCC ex plic - 

itly tied to the United Na tions Frame work 

Con ven tion on Cli mate Change (UNFCCC) as 

its pol icy au di ence, but it also in cor po rates po - 

lit i cal del e ga tions from the UNFCCC into its 

in ter nal as sess ment struc ture. Over the course 

of pro duc ing three multi-year as sess ment re - 

ports be tween 1988 and 2002, the IPCC has 

de vel oped sev eral in no va tive ap proaches to 

the sci ence-pol icy in ter face, in clud ing the pro - 

duc tion of a sum mary for policymakers (SPM) 

and the use of pol icy rel e vant sci en tific ques - 

tions (PRSQ) to struc ture the fi nal Syn the sis 

Re port in the 2001 as sess ment. These are in - 

tended to fa cil i tate in ter ac tion be tween sci - 

ence and pol icy com mu ni ties and thus con trib - 

ute to sit u at ing the IPCC sci en tific as sess ment 

pro cess within an in ter gov ern men tal frame - 

work. 

How ever, over the past de cade, the sci encepol 

icy nexus in ter nal to the IPCC has sparked 

sig nif i cant con tro versy and crit i cism with re - 

gard to the cred i bil ity of IPCC in ter pre ta tions 

and prod ucts. The pur pose of this pa per is to 

ex am ine these two in no va tions with re spect to 

the way the in ter ac tion be tween sci ence and 

pol icy is man aged, in the ex pec ta tion that such 

an anal y sis might shed light on what may be 

fruit ful ways to think about the role and sta tus 

of sci en tific in for ma tion used for pol icy pur - 

poses and how the sci en tific and po lit i cal com - 

mu ni ties can op er ate to gether to pro duce in - 

for ma tion that re mains cred i ble to both 

com mu ni ties. 

The IPCC as a Sci ence Pol icy Fo rum 

The cre ation of the In ter gov ern men tal 

Panel on Cli mate Change in 1988 con sti tuted a 

wa ter shed in the scale and scope of in ter na - 

tional sci ence as sess ment. Since then, the 

IPCC has is sued three As sess ment Re ports 

(1991, 1996, and 2001) each con sist ing of 

three vol umes, amount ing to thou sands of 

pages, and in volv ing the par tic i pa tion of thou - 

sands of ex perts around the world as au thors 

and re view ers in the as sess ment pro cess. The 

three vol umes of the 2001 Third As sess ment 

Re port, and the Syn the sis Re port, have been 

pub lished by Cam bridge Uni ver sity Press, un - 

der the ti tle Cli mate Change 2001. (The full 

text of each re port and the var i ous spe cial re - 

ports can be found on the IPCC website at 

www.ipcc.ch.) The man date of the IPCC has 

been to pro duce “pol icy rel e vant” but not “pol - 

icy pre scrip tive” as sess ments of the sci ence of 

cli mate change, in clud ing phys i cal, tech ni cal, 

and so cial sci en tific knowl edge. 

The ex is tence and de vel op ment of the IPCC 

in its three it er a tions since 1988 pro vides a 

pow er ful case study of the way sci ence has 

been used in sup port of the pol icy pro cess. 

While much work has been con ducted on sub - 

stan tive cli mate re search and its use (Schnei - 

der, 1989; Shackley and Wynne, 1995, and 

1996; Shackley et al., 1998; van der Sluijs et 

al., 1998; Sarewitz and Pielke Jr., 2000) lit tle 

anal y sis has been done on what con sti tutes 

“pol icy rel e vant sci en tific in for ma tion,” the 

pro cesses that cre ate it, and the im pli ca tions of 

this over arch ing type of man date for un der - 

stand ing sci ence in the in ter na tional pol icy 

sphere. 

The role that sci ence has played in so ci ety 

has been in flu en tial and dom i nant in so cial and 

in sti tu tional de ci sion-mak ing struc tures 

(Gieryn, 1999; Jasanoff, 1990, and 1991; 

Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998), due to the prev a - 

lence of what might be called a “truth speaks to 

power” view of the sci ence-pol icy re la tion - 

ship. Pub lic is sues re garded as con tro ver sial or 

prob lem atic in pol i tics are of ten put into what 

is per ceived as the ob jec tive and ra tio nal hands 

of sci en tists and sci en tific in quiry. In deed the 

phrase “truth speaks to power” was coined (by 

Price, 1965) to in di cate uni di rec tional flow of 

in for ma tion from the au ton o mous sci en tific 

com mu nity or “truth” through to the po lit i cal 


106

or “power” com mu ni ties. How ever, in sci en - 

tific dis putes “a fun da men tal di chot omy [ex - 

ists] be tween the po ten tial dis pute res o lu tion 

ob jec tives of ‘truth’ and ‘jus tice’” (Salter, 

1988). Due to the bur den of proof, the sci en - 

tific canon of hy poth e sis test ing rests on the 

doc trine of “the ory un til proven fact” as a fun - 

da men tal com po nent of the truth-seek ing pro - 

cess. This method makes it dif fi cult for judg - 

ments to be based on prin ci ples such as jus tice 

or pre cau tion. It is there fore dif fi cult to con - 

nect sci ence to the of ten strongly nor ma tive 

de ci sions re quired in a pol icy context. 

More over, the con ven tional view of sci ence 

un der ly ing this ap proach to the sci ence-pol icy 

re la tion ship has it self sub se quently come un - 

der crit i cal in ves ti ga tion. Schol ars work ing in 

the so cial stud ies of sci ence have ex am ined the 

ways in which the pro duc tion of sci en tific 

claims made about the nat u ral world is me di - 

ated through so cial re la tions and pro cesses 

(Bloor, 1967; Col lins, 1981; Latour and 

Woolgar, 1979; Latour, 1987, and 1993; 

Knorr-Cetina, 1992; Barnes and Bloor, 1996). 

Sim i lar ap proaches have been ap plied to the 

IPCC pro cess, in which the sci ence in volved in 

the IPCC as sess ments has been crit i cized for 

weak nesses in meth od olog i cal rigor and in teg - 

rity in sci en tific in ter pre ta tion (Lindzen, 2001; 

SEPP). In this work, a sharp dis tinc tion be - 

tween sci ence and pol icy has been re placed by 

a more nuanced ar gu ment about the mu tual 

interpenetration of sci en tific and po lit i cal con - 

cepts and val ues. 

We ex am ine three ap proaches to an a lyz ing 

the IPCC sci en tific as sess ment and its con nec - 

tion to the pol icy pro cess. Each con trib utes 

philo soph i cal in sights into the state of the 

global sci en tific en ter prise, and the role that 

sci ence plays and should play in the pol icy 

sphere. Each model there fore has im pli ca tions 

for ne go ti at ing the sci ence-pol icy in ter face in 

the IPCC. Three ap proaches can be found in 

the anal y ses of the Sci ence and En vi ron men tal 

Pol icy Pro ject or SEPP, Sonja Boehmer- 

Christiansen, 1994a and 1994b; and Si mon 

Shackley and Brian Wynne, 1995 and 1997. 

For a sum mary anal y sis of the IPCC struc ture 

on which these anal y ses will be de ployed, see 

the Ap pen dix. 

The Positivist Critique 

IPCC at tempts to pro vide “pol icy rel e vant 

but not pol icy pre scrip tive sci en tific in for ma - 

tion” have steered the IPCC from a tra di tional 

“truth speaks to power” con cep tion of the sci - 

ence-pol icy in ter face to ward an in sti tu tion al - 

ized in ter ac tion be tween sci ence and pol icy 

com mu ni ties. These prac tices are quite dif fer - 

ent from dom i nant posi tiv ist tra di tions with re - 

gard to the prac tice, au thor ity, and use of sci - 

ence and sci en tific in for ma tion. It is not 

sur pris ing, then, that the IPCC and par tic i pat - 

ing sci en tists have been ac cused of per form ing 

“bad” or “co-opted” sci ence. An ex am i na tion 

of one con tro versy be tween posi tiv ist sci en - 

tific tra di tions and the sci ence pol icy in no va - 

tions of the IPCC re veal some of the ten sions 

in volved in the mod els of sci ence used to eval - 

u ate a sci en tific as sess ment of the IPCC-type. 

Ef forts to pre scribe tra di tional val ues of ob - 

jec tiv ity, ra tio nal ity, and au ton omy or “high 

sci ence” to the ac tiv i ties of the IPCC as sess - 

ment are the fo cus of cli mate and at mo spheric 

sci en tists or ga nized around the Sci ence and 

En vi ron men tal Pol icy Pro ject (SEPP) (di - 

rected by the well-known cli mate change 

contrarian, Fred Singer) with the goal of en sur - 

ing the contrarian per spec tive is reg u larly re - 

ported. SEPP was cen tral in writ ing and co or - 

di nat ing sig na tures for the Leip zig 

Dec la ra tion. (For a list of SEPP pub li ca tions 

see www.sepp.org). The sign ing of the Leip zig 

Dec la ra tion, which is sim i lar to the Hei del berg 

Ap peal of the Rio Sum mit (1992), was an ac - 

tion taken by a small group of cli mate sci en - 

tists against the IPCC con sen sus on 

anthropogenic-in duced cli mate change, the 

Cli mate Treaty, and the Kyoto Pro to col. The 

Dec la ra tion and its hun dred sig na to ries came 

out of the In ter na tional Sym po sium on the 

Green house Con tro versy, held in Leip zig, 

Ger many, on No vem ber 9–10, 1995, and in 

Bonn, Ger many, on No vem ber 10–11, 1997. 

The Leip zig Dec la ra tion chal lenges the pri - 

mary meth ods of ob ser va tion and val i da tion 

used in the IPCC, by stat ing: 

We be lieve that the dire pre dic tions of a fu ture 

warm ing have not been val i dated by the his toric 

cli mate re cord, which ap pears to be dom i nated 

by nat u ral fluc tu a tions, show ing both warm ing 

and cool ing. These pre dic tions are based on 

noth ing more than the o ret i cal mod els and can - 

not be re lied on to con struct far-reach ing pol i - 

cies. 

Cli mate contrarians have long ar gued that 

the the o ret i cal and sim u lated tech niques used 

SCIENCE POLICY MODELS 

107

to gen er ate pol icy rel e vant in for ma tion do not 

con sti tute valid and cred i ble sci en tific in quiry. 

Fa mil iar names such as Fred Singer (SEPP) 

and Rich ard Lindzen (2001) claim that mod els 

used in the IPCC have not been val i dated with 

real-world ob ser va tions and are there fore not 

ac cu rate sources of de scrip tion and pre dic tion 

for cli mate change and its causes. Lindzen 

(2001) ar gues that the re li ance on in ac cu rate 

and un cer tain the o ret i cal mod els for feits op - 

por tu ni ties for sci ence to re duce un cer tain ties 

and to strengthen sci en tific un der stand ing of 

the global cli mate. In dis cuss ing the use and 

im pli ca tions of the o ret i cal mod els in the 

IPCC, Lindzen (2001) makes a dis tinc tion be - 

tween “cor rect” and “pos si ble” in for ma tion. 

He charges that IPCC sci en tists have used pre - 

dic tive mod els to fo cus on the “pos si ble” ad - 

verse sit u a tions in or der for pol icy ac tion to be 

taken. More over he states that this use of pre - 

dic tive mod els “ef fec tively de prives so ci ety of 

sci ence’s ca pac ity to solve prob lems and an - 

swer ques tions” (Lindzen, 2001, 2). 

The contrarian con cern with the IPCC is 

two-fold. First, the contrarians be lieve it is 

nec es sary to pa trol the bound aries be tween 

sci ence and pol icy in or der to en sure that the 

IPCC’s re quire ment for pol icy rel e vance does 

not con tra vene the cri te ria of sci en tific cor rect - 

ness and ro bust ness. They ar gue, for ex am ple, 

that the sig nif i cance of un der ly ing un cer tain - 

ties have not been suf fi ciently rep re sented in 

the sum mary for policymakers (SPM) and sug - 

gest that this gives in for ma tion greater au thor - 

ity in the user com mu nity. This leads to the 

contrarians’ sec ond con cern about the sig nif i - 

cant ex po sure and at ten tion IPCC prod ucts 

and par tic u larly the work ing group SPM’s 

have within the in ter na tional pol icy au di ence. 

SEPP’s com ment “we de tect here a se ri ous 

mis use of sci ence and of sci en tists for po lit i cal 

pur poses” speaks to the per ceived pres sures 

ex erted on sci en tists in a sci en tific as sess ment 

in tended to de rive pol icy rel e vant in for ma tion. 

Within the IPCC the in ter gov ern men tal au di - 

ence seeks in for ma tion and rec om men da tions 

from sci ence and sci en tists. It is feared that by 

mak ing the re la tion ship be tween sci en tist and 

policymaker closer, a sense of pol icy ur gency 

around cli mate change may lead to the pre ma - 

ture use of in suf fi cient and in ap pro pri ately 

val i dated in for ma tion. The contrarians ar gue 

that sci en tific con sen sus in the IPCC cre ates a 

ve neer of sci en tific ro bust ness even where sig - 

nif i cant un cer tain ties ex ist (see Camp bell, 

1985, and Wynne, 1992, for dis cus sions about 

un cer tainty in ar eas of sci en tific controversy). 

SEPP and the contrarian anal y sis de pend 

upon a posi tiv ist model of sci ence where the 

ap pro pri ate role of the sci en tist is to pur sue 

“pure” sci en tific in quiry sep a rate from the pol - 

icy sphere. The posi tiv ist ap proach as sumes 

that policymakers re quire ro bust sci en tific ev i - 

dence in or der to le git i mize their de ci sions— 

where the rigor of sci ence, when ad e quately 

trans lated, will in form the most ap pro pri ate 

pol icy de ci sions. The im plicit sug ges tion is 

that good sci ence trans lates into good pol icy. 

This in ter pre ta tion re lies on a par tic u lar view 

of an au ton o mous and ob jec tive sci ence that is 

de-cou pled from the nor ma tive pro to cols and 

de ci sions of the socio-po lit i cal world. Of 

course, the posi tiv ist model of sci ence un der - 

ly ing the SEPP anal y sis has been strongly 

chal lenged for some time in the sci ence pol icy 

lit er a ture. 

The two fol low ing anal y ses use 

constructivist ap proaches to an a lyze the so cial 

pro cesses that un der line cli mate sci ence ac tiv - 

i ties in clud ing the ques tions asked, meth ods 

used and the ways that in for ma tion is ne go ti - 

ated for its suf fi ciency and ad e quacy. 

Constructivist ap proaches high light the ways 

that sci ence and pol icy com mu ni ties are not as 

dis crete in prac tice as they are in the ory but in - 

stead ex pose the ways sci ence and pol icy are 

inter pen etrat ing forces. 

From a constructivist point of view, the ap - 

par ent trans fer of value-neu tral sci en tific in - 

for ma tion to le git i mize the de ci sions of the 

value-laden pol icy world be comes prob lem - 

atic when as sess ing “pol icy rel e vant sci en tific 

in for ma tion.” Latour (1993) as serts that the at - 

tempt to “pu rify” the do mains of sci ence and 

pol icy is a fruit less mod ern ist pro ject that de - 

nies the im bro glios that ul ti mately re sult in the 

“pro lif er a tion of hy brids” be tween sci ence and 

the socio-po lit i cal sphere. A constructivist ap - 

proach ex am ines the un der ly ing val ues, pre - 

scrip tions and pro cesses in volved in sci en tific 

prac tice that be come re moved from the for mal 

rep re sen ta tion of sci ence. 

Boehmer-Christiansen at the macro-scale 

and Shackley and Wynne at the mi cro-scale 

look to the in flu ences, ne go ti a tions, and prac - 

tices that con struct sci en tific in for ma tion and 

by do ing so, chal lenge the dis cur sive and pre - 

scrip tive au thor ity at trib uted to both sci ence 

and sci en tists. These anal y ses re veal the con - 

tin gency in volved in the fram ing of sci en tific 


108

prob lems, in claim-mak ing and fact con struc - 

tion, and the per va sive ness of the pol icy in ter - 

face in cli mate sci ence. It is an open ques tion, 

how ever, whether this con tin gency nec es sar ily 

re duces the cred i bil ity or whether it en hances 

the use ful ness of the sci ence gen er ated in the 

IPCC. The two ap proaches we ex am ine seem 

to come to dif fer ent views on this point. 

A Contextual Approach 

Boehmer-Christiansen (1994) traces the be - 

hav iors, al li ances and eco nomic ties of the 

lead ing cli mate sci en tists (those sci en tists al - 

ready op er at ing within pres ti gious in sti tu - 

tions) to show how sci en tists have used ideo - 

log i cal not sci en tific per sua sion to es tab lish 

cli mate change as a pol icy pri or ity. She ar gues 

that the in cep tion of the in ter na tional cli mate 

re search pro gram (cul mi nat ing in the IPCC) 

was mo ti vated by two in cen tives—the abil ity 

to se cure fund ing and the abil ity to co or di nate 

and pro mote an en vi ron men tal pol icy agenda. 

In the First As sess ment Re port (FAR) sci en - 

tists aligned them selves with an en vi ron men tal 

agenda of “ac tion now” sup ported by a small 

yet sig nif i cant group of up per level bu reau - 

crats. Yet ac cord ing to Boehmer-Christiansen, 

this changed in the Sec ond As sess ment Re port 

(SAR). Greater sig nif i cance was at trib uted to 

sci en tific un cer tain ties in the SAR, which pro - 

moted a “wait and learn” ap proach to pol icy. 

Boehmer-Christiansen sug gests that, “faced 

with the com plex ity of en vi ron men tal sci ence 

re search ing at the fron tiers of knowl edge sci - 

en tific ad vo cacy can hon estly switch from em - 

pha siz ing cer tain ties to un cer tain ties, from the 

ad vo cacy of ‘ac tion now’ to a ‘wait and learn’ 

ap proach” (1994b, 197; em pha sis added). In 

other words, cli mate sci ence is suf fi ciently un - 

cer tain that dif fer ent, le git i mate in ter pre ta - 

tions are possible. 

Boehmer-Christiansen’s (1994) ac tor-net - 

work ap proach re lies heavily on an as sump tion 

of so cial agency. Sim i lar to Latour and 

Woolgar (1979), Boehmer-Christiansen 

(1994a) takes as a point of de par ture the ways 

that sci en tists pro duce pub lic mean ing through 

their abil ity to en roll al lies and through the ma - 

nip u la tion of re sources. She con cludes that the 

pres er va tion and en hance ment of sci en tific ca - 

reers and the de sire to se cure fu ture fund ing is 

the in ter est of sci en tists. Latour and Woolgar 

(1979) re fer to this as the “cred i bil ity cy cle” 

around which sci en tists re volve in an end less 

se quence of pro duc ing work, re ceiv ing rec og - 

ni tion, and get ting sup port. Boehmer- 

Christiansen’s (1994a, and 1994b) anal y sis re - 

veals the roles of fund ing cir cles, epistemic 

net works, and an es tab lished cred i bil ity cy cle 

where sci en tists ad here to un der ly ing pol icy 

com mit ments in or der to se cure in ter est and 

fund ing for their per sonal re search. There is 

the im plicit sug ges tion that where epistemic 

con sen sus ex ists, sci en tists have uni lat eral and 

per sua sive au thor ity within the pol icy sphere. 

Yet where con tro versy and un cer tainty per - 

vades en vi ron men tal sci ence, sci en tists can 

“hon estly” shift from one in ter pre ta tion to a 

dif fer ent one (by fo cus ing on ques tions of ad e - 

quacy of knowl edge and suf fi ciency of in for - 

ma tion) (Camp bell, 1985). In this way, 

Boehmer-Christiansen ar gues that the au thor - 

ity of sci ence has been used to le git i mate both 

strong pol icy (FAR) and sta tus-quo pol icy 

(SAR) in the IPCC. She re veals the con tin - 

gency of sci en tific in ter pre ta tions in pol icy 

and sug gests that the “ad-hoc ar range ments” 

and the blur ring of the roles be tween sci en tific 

and bu reau cratic in sti tu tions have de creased 

the le git i macy of IPCC information. 

The im pli ca tions of Boehmer- 

Christiansen’s anal y sis for our pur poses is that 

it goes be yond the posi tiv ist cri tique to re veal 

the de gree to which the “front end” of the sci - 

en tific pro cess is it self al ready con nected in 

strong ways to the pol icy pro cess. This sug - 

gests that the SEPP cri tique of the IPCC pro - 

cess is mis guided since it ig nores the de gree to 

which this front-end con nec tiv ity al ready 

com pro mises a uni di rec tional “truth speaks to 

power” model of the sci ence-pol icy re la tion - 

ship. Boehmer-Christiansen’s ar gu ments are 

use ful in show ing how the posi tiv ist ideal of an 

au ton o mous and ob jec tive sci ence is un at tain - 

able. 

A Situated Science—Looking to Science in 

Prac tice 

Pol icy-ori ented re search is the re sult of 

com plex forms of com mu nal work be tween 

sci en tific and bu reau cratic in sti tu tions that can 

share in the mu tual le git i ma tion of ideas, dis - 

courses, prac tices, and goals (Jasanoff and 

Wynne, 1998). The sit u a tional ap proach has as 

its foun da tion the as sump tion of a strong form 

of en gage ment be tween sci en tists and 

policymakers. This ap proach sug gests that so - 

cial in flu ences in volved in sci ence and knowl - 


109

edge cre ation not only ex ist in ties to the bu - 

reau cratic es tab lish ment, but also are more 

im plic itly de fined by a shared so cial en vi ron - 

ment and the cog ni tive com mit ments that act 

to de fine that en vi ron ment. This is known as 

the co-pro duc tion of sci en tific in for ma tion, 

where so cial and cul tural com mit ments are 

built into ev ery phase of knowl edge pro duc - 

tion and con se quent so cial ac tion (Jasanoff 

and Wynne, 1998). 

In the IPCC con text, Shackley and Wynne 

(1995, and 1997) use a sit u a tional model to in - 

ves ti gate the de vel op ment of tech ni cal knowl - 

edge in the IPCC and the so cial que ries in - 

volved in de ter min ing the ad e quacy of 

knowl edge. The sit u a tional ap proach as sumes 

that sci ence is sit u ated and prac ticed in con tin - 

gent sci en tific cul tures that op er ate un der dif - 

fer ent ex pec ta tions and con straints and where 

judg ments of ra tio nal ity and ir ra tio nal ity are 

made in par tic u lar prac tice set tings and struc - 

tures. Shackley et al. (1998) look in ter nally to 

sci en tific prac tice and its sub stan tive con tent 

in the IPCC to ex pose how the de vel op ment, 

con struc tion, and in ter pre ta tion of global cir - 

cu la tion mod els (GCM) is im plic itly in flu - 

enced by ties to the pol icy realm. 

Shackley and Wynne (1995) take as their 

point of de par ture the way sci en tific in ter pre - 

ta tions con struct (and limit) the cli mate sci - 

ence re search agenda. They claim that the 

GCM lit er a tures used in WG I es tab lish a 

“knowl edge net” where the in de ter mi nacy of 

the cli mate sys tem is con structed into a “do - 

able” re search agenda and is there fore con sid - 

ered know able through the use of GCM tech - 

nol ogy. They ar gue that this gen er ates a 

“knowl edge pyr a mid” whereby a rel a tively 

small or core-set group of WG I cli mate sci en - 

tists and mod el ers, es tab lish con cep tual he ge - 

mony over cli mate re search and anal y sis as 

well as over the en tire IPCC pro cess (Shackley 

and Wynne, 1995; Shackley et al., 1998). They 

find that the com pi la tion, con struc tion, and in - 

ter pre ta tion of these mod els is dom i nated by a 

small num ber of sci en tists who, based on orig - 

i nal es ti ma tions and as sump tions, tac itly in flu - 

ence what in for ma tion be comes tan gi ble, rel e - 

vant, and know able both in the nat u ral and the 

so cial worlds of in ves ti ga tion and re sponse. 

De ter mi na tions of ad e quate and ac cept able 

ap prox i ma tions and un cer tain ties in volved in 

the model con struc tion re main the do main of 

sci en tific judg ment de spite the strong heu ris tic 

im pli ca tions for the pol icy com mu nity and the 

in flu ence on their abil ity to con sider re sponses 

(Oreskes et al. 1994). 

Shackley and Wynne’s (1995) anal y sis does 

not at tempt to un der mine the use of gen eral 

cir cu la tion mod els (GCM’s) or the sci en tific 

and tech ni cal as sess ments of the IPCC. In - 

stead, they dem on strate the nu ances of the sci - 

ence-pol icy in ter face that is in ter nal to the con - 

struc tion of cli mate mod els. They ar gue that 

the con struc tion and in ter pre ta tion of GCM’s 

of ten is based upon “im plicit as sump tions 

about the user world, its needs and ca pa bil i ties, 

and its struc tures of agency and de ci sion-mak - 

ing” (1995, 120). This ar gu ment re turns to the 

con cerns ex pressed by SEPP about the in ter nal 

work ing of sci ence. Like SEPP, Shackley and 

Wynne paint a pic ture of sci ence as in flu enced 

by the con cep tual judg ments of sci en tists 

struc tured in a way that col ors the kinds of con - 

clu sions reached both in fu ture re search ef forts 

and im plic itly in the ex plo ra tion of pol icy op - 

tions. But un like SEPP, Shackley and Wynne 

do not see this pic ture as prob lem atic in prin ci - 

ple. An aware ness of such pro cesses does not 

weaken or in val i date sci ence but al lows a 

richer and more nuanced view of its ben e fits 

and lim its. By ex pos ing ar eas of ne go ti a tion, 

ap prox i ma tion, and un cer tainty, and di vi sions 

amid a spe cial ized sci en tific core, Shackley 

and Wynne sug gest that sci en tific contestation 

is not just the re sult of sci ence be ing trans lated 

into the pol icy realm but is in stead an in trin sic 

part of sci en tific in quiry. They re veal the ways 

that sci en tific prac ti tio ners im plic itly ne go ti - 

ate judg ments that in flu ence the con cep tual 

ter ri tory of the pol icy “user” community. 

The sit u a tional ap proach re veals the ways 

that nor ma tive de ci sions and judg ments made 

by sci en tists be come en trenched in the de sign, 

for mu la tion, and in ter pre ta tion of in for ma tion. 

Shackley and Wynne’s anal y sis ex poses the 

sci ence-pol icy nexus that is im plicit in sci en - 

tific as sess ment and within most sci en tific de - 

lib er a tions over the rel e vance and ad e quacy of 

in for ma tion. 

Com par ing the Three Ap proaches 

The three ap proaches for the use of sci ence 

de scribed here paint quite dif fer ent pic tures of 

both the ac tual and ideal na ture of the re la tion - 

ship be tween sci ence and pol icy. In the posi tiv - 

ist anal y sis of IPCC sci en tific in for ma tion, 

SEPP paints a pic ture of sci en tists as, in prin ci - 

ple, au ton o mous from the socio-po lit i cal 


110

sphere in which they op er ate. In con trast 

Boehmer-Christiansen and Shackley and 

Wynne ap ply constructivist meth ods in their 

anal y ses of the IPCC. Constructivist stud ies 

in ves ti gate sci ence as a so cial pro cess and re in - 

te grate the so cial di men sions in volved in all 

sci ence, whether ap plied or pure, which are of - 

ten erased from sci en tific rep re sen ta tions 

(Latour 1987). These two stud ies taken to - 

gether pro vide an un der stand ing of the un der - 

ly ing con cep tual, ideo log i cal, and so cial pro - 

cesses in volved in sci en tific in quiry rather than 

an ide al ized pic ture of sci ence based on an 

ethos of ob jec tiv ity, au ton omy and ac cu racy 

pur sued in the posi tiv ist ap proach. 

Sci en tific judg ments about what ques tions 

to ask, meth od ol o gies to use and what in ter - 

pre ta tions are made are im bued with tech ni cal, 

so cial, po lit i cal, and eco nomic con sid er ations, 

and gen er ally re main un ex am ined (Shackley 

et al., 1998). These judg ments there fore in - 

volve more than just the sci en tific com mu nity 

and at their most ba sic form are hy brid judg - 

ments that strad dle the worlds of the so cial and 

nat u ral. The crit i cal point, how ever, is that 

these judg ments re main hid den un der the 

guise of ob jec tive, au ton o mous sci en tific in - 

quiry. 

Negotiating the Boundary 

Com par ing the three anal y ses dis cussed 

here pro vides a use ful way to con sider new ap - 

proaches to a phi los o phy of sci ence/pol icy. 

How ever, the fo cus on cli mate sci ence and the 

sub stan tive prod ucts gen er ated by the IPCC in 

these anal y ses may de flect at ten tion from what 

could be the most novel, in no va tive, and per ti - 

nent as pect of the IPCC—the IPCC as pro - 

cess—as a means in and of it self. Un der stand - 

ing the ways that cred i bil ity and le git i macy are 

for mu lated both within sci en tific pro cess and 

in sci ence-pol icy in ter ac tions may be a use ful 

way to de velop mean ing ful “pol icy rel e vant 

not pol icy pre scrip tive sci en tific in for ma tion.” 

“Mean ing ful,” in this sense, de notes a dis tinc - 

tion be tween the val ues as so ci ated with tra di - 

tional dis courses of cred i bil ity and le git i macy 

and the pos si bil i ties for the cred i bil ity and le - 

git i macy of in for ma tion that is nei ther pure 

sci ence nor pure pol icy but some hy brid of the 

two. 

Two IPCC in stru ments—the sum mary for 

policymakers (SPM) and the syn the sis re port 

(SYR)—me di ate the in ter ac tion be tween sci - 

en tists and policymakers (see Ap pen dix). The 

ques tion is whether these pro ce dural in stru - 

ments rep re sent a place where the cred i bil ity 

and le git i macy of in for ma tion can be en hanced 

through the sci ence-pol icy in ter face. Such a 

pro ce dural point of con nec tion may pro vide 

the op por tu nity for sci ence and pol icy com mu - 

ni ties to trans fer in for ma tion, val ues, and dis - 

courses in both di rec tions. Rather than ac cept - 

ing the uni di rec tional flow of in for ma tion 

pos ited by a posi tiv ist frame work, as sess ments 

pro duce “pol icy rel e vant sci en tific in for ma - 

tion” that re quire in put by both knowl edge 

pro duc ers and knowl edge us ers about key sci - 

en tific find ings and about what is pol icy rel e - 

vant. Guston (2001) high lights the im por tant 

role for in creased in ter ac tion be tween sci ence 

and pol icy in or der to re cover the bor der lands 

that ex ist be tween these dis crete and bi nary 

cat e go ries. Yet he cau tions that it is not clear to 

what ex tent the blur ring of bound aries is pro - 

duc tive and at what point it be comes de struc - 

tive (2001, 400). Work ing from Shackley and 

Wynne’s in ves ti ga tion, we are in ter ested in ex - 

tend ing the sit u a tional model to the pro ce dural 

level where un der ly ing judg ments, as sump - 

tions, ap prox i ma tions, and un cer tain ties in sci - 

en tific in for ma tion can be as sessed and ne go ti - 

ated through a man aged sci ence pol icy 

process. 

In or der to un der stand how cred i bil ity and 

le git i macy are de vel oped and main tained in 

the SPM and the SYR pro cesses, an un der - 

stand ing of bound ary ob jects be comes sa lient. 

Bound ary ob jects man age and max i mize both 

the au ton omy and com mu ni ca tion be tween 

worlds where het er o ge neous econ o mies of in - 

for ma tion and ma te ri als are re quired (Star and 

Griesemer, 1989, 404). Sim i lar to “bound ary 

ob jects,” the SPM and PRSQs co or di nate two 

di ver gent worlds while main tain ing the iden - 

tity of each. Bound ary ob jects en able am big u - 

ous and multivalent in for ma tion to travel 

across bound aries and rep re sent dif fer ent 

mean ings to dif fer ent com mu ni ties. Ac cord - 

ing to Star and Griesemer (1989) stan dard iza - 

tion of meth ods (dis cussed by Shackley and 

Wynne 1995; 1997) and mon i tor ing of pro cess 

make in for ma tion com pat i ble, al low ing for a 

lon ger reach across di ver gent worlds. In ves ti - 

gat ing the lat ter will lead to an anal y sis of how 

these in stru ments can con trib ute more ef fec - 

tively to the ad vance ment of pol icy rel e vant 

sci en tific in for ma tion that is trans par ently coproduced. 


111

These con sid er ations sug gest that the en - 

cour age ment of cer tain forms of sci ence-pol - 

icy in ter ac tion may in crease the abil ity to de - 

rive pol icy rel e vant sci en tific in for ma tion 

with out weak en ing or un der min ing the sci en - 

tific pro cess. We be lieve the de gree to which 

the SPM and PRSQ pro cesses act to (a) trans - 

late, sim plify, and make com plex and ex ten - 

sive sci en tific in for ma tion rel e vant to a pol icy 

au di ence (SPM), (b) sit u ate pol icy rel e vant 

sci ence within an in ter gov ern men tal frame - 

work (SYR), and (c) man age sci ence-pol icy 

in ter ac tion in unique ways, de serves fur ther 

study and ex plo ra tion. An in ves ti ga tion into 

the IPCC pro cess has the po ten tial to trans form 

con ven tional com mit ments to the bound aries 

be tween the sci en tific and po lit i cal worlds, to 

com mit ments that in clude new cri te ria and 

more contextualized pro to cols for the de vel op - 

ment of valid and use ful knowl edge. 

Conclusion 

“Pol icy rel e vant sci en tific in for ma tion” 

may re quire that as sess ment sci ence cease to 

be re garded as the cul mi na tion of a uni ver sal 

sci en tific method re sult ing in uni fied agree - 

ment. Rather, it may be more pro duc tive to un - 

der stand as sess ment as a ne go ti a tion be tween 

sci en tists and the pol icy com mu ni ties in the 

ac cep tance of prob lem def i ni tion, meth ods, 

the ad e quacy of in for ma tion, and the sig nif i - 

cance of un cer tain ties. In this way, the in for - 

ma tion pro duced would be less likely to fall 

within the “truth speaks to power” (sim i lar to 

SEPP) or “power speaks to truth” (sim i lar to 

Boehmer-Christiansen) con cep tion of sci ence 

that trans fers cog ni tive au thor ity to ei ther sci - 

en tific or pol icy com mu ni ties. A pro cess that 

en cour ages sci ence-pol icy in ter ac tion, and 

man ages the ne go ti a tion at the in ter face may 

(co-) pro duce better ques tions, for mu la tions, 

as sess ments, and prod ucts than ei ther in de - 

pend ently. Per haps ex plic itly in clud ing the 

user com mu nity in the pro cess to ne go ti ate 

what their own needs are and what is con sid - 

ered to be rel e vant will lead to a much more 

sub stan tial form of pol icy rel e vant sci en tific 

in for ma tion (Wynne, 1989, 1992, and 1992a). 

In or der to in ves ti gate this is sue we need to 

look at ques tions like: How is the IPCC pro - 

cess deal ing with the in her ent as sump tions, 

nor ma tive judg ments, and am bi gu ities in - 

volved in con struct ing sci en tific knowl edge? 

What types of ex per tise and which com mu ni - 

ties have the cred i bil ity to in form judg ments 

in volved in prob lem con struc tion? How can 

knowl edge claims and pol icy de ci sions be de - 

vel oped through pro ce dures and prac tices con - 

sid ered le git i mate? What con sti tutes cred i ble 

and rel e vant in for ma tion on an is sue such as 

global cli mate change where ev ery one is a 

stake holder? What role do the SPM and PRSQ 

pro cesses play in pro duc ing rel e vant but not 

pre scrip tive in for ma tion? Ad dress ing these 

ques tions may pro vide sig nif i cant in sight into 

a more ad e quate phi los o phy of sci ence pol icy 

in global en vi ron men tal prob lems. Rather than 

see ing sci ence as a uni tary and tran scen den tal 

de scrip tion of the world “out there” and the in - 

ter na tional pol icy com mu nity as merely in ter - 

est-based, an al ter na tive view that ac knowl - 

edges the con tin gent and hy brid na ture of both 

sci en tific and po lit i cal knowl edge may be de - 

sir able. A view that rec og nizes the unique con - 

tri bu tion each can make to pol icy prob lems 

may suc ceed in pro duc ing knowl edge that is 

in deed rel e vant, but not pre scrip tive in un de - 

sir able ways. 

REFERENCES 

Ashmore, M. (1989) The Re flex ive The sis: Wrighting So - 

ci ol ogy of Sci en tific Knowl edge. Chi cago: Uni ver sity of 

Chi cago Press. 

Barnes, B., and D. Bloor. (1996) Sci en tific Knowl edge: A 

So cio log i cal Anal y sis. Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago 

Press. 

Bloor, D. (1991) Knowl edge and So cial Im ag ery. Chi - 

cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press. 

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a) “Global Cli mate Pro - 

tec tion Pol icy: The Lim its of Sci en tific Ad vice (Part I),” 

Global En vi ron men tal Change 4, no. 2. 

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b) “Global Cli mate Pro - 

tec tion Pol icy: The Lim its of Sci en tific Ad vice (Part 2),” 

Global En vi ron men tal Change 4, no. 3. 

Camp bell, B. (1985) “Un cer tainty as Sym bolic Ac tion in 

Dis putes Among Ex perts,” So cial Stud ies of Sci ence 15 

(Au gust): 429–53. 

Clarke, A., and J.H. Fujimura eds. (1992) The Right Tools 

for the Job: At Work in the Twen ti eth Cen tury Life Sci - 

ences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 


112

Col lins, H. (1981) “The Role of the Core-set in Mod ern 

Sci ence: So cial Con tin gency with Meth od olog i cal Pro - 

pri ety in Sci ence,” His tory of Sci ence 19: 6–19. 

Farrell, A., S. van Deveer, and J. Jager. (2001) “En vi ron - 

men tal As sess ments: Four Un der-ap pre ci ated El e ments 

of De sign,” Global En vi ron men tal Change 11, no. 4: 

311–33. 

Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cul tural Bound aries of Sci ence: 

Cred i bil ity on the Line. Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago 

Press. 

Guston, D. (2001). “Bound ary Or ga ni za tion in En vi ron - 

men tal Pol icy and Sci ence: An In tro duc tion,” Sci ence, 

Tech nol ogy & Hu man Val ues 26, no. 4: 399–408. 

IPCC. (1998) Prin ci ples Gov ern ing IPCC Work. IPCC 

14th Ses sion, Vi enna, IPCC. 

Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Sci ence Ad vi sors as 

Policymakers. Cam bridge: Har vard Uni ver sity Press. 

Jasanoff, S. (1991) “Ac cept able Ev i dence in a Plu ral is tic 

So ci ety,” in D. Mayo, and R. Hol lander, eds., Ac cept - 

able Ev i dence (Ox ford: Ox ford Uni ver sity Press), 31– 

47. 

Jasanoff, S., and B. Wynne. (1998) “Sci ence and De ci - 

sion-Mak ing,” in S. Rayner, and E. Malone, eds., Hu - 

man Choice and Cli mate Change Vol ume: The So ci etal 

Frame work (Co lum bus OH: Battelle Press), 1–88. 

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1992) “The Couch, the Ca the dral, and 

the Lab o ra tory: On the Re la tion ship be tween Ex per i - 

ment and Lab o ra tory in Sci ence,” in An drew Pickering, 

ed., Sci ence as Prac tice and Cul ture (Chi cago: Uni ver - 

sity of Chi cago Press), 65–113. 

Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. (1979) Lab o ra tory Life. Lon - 

don: Sage. 

Latour, B. (1987) Sci ence in Ac tion: How to Fol low Sci - 

en tists and En gi neers through So ci ety. Cam bridge: Har - 

vard Uni ver sity Press. 

Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Mod ern. Cam - 

bridge: Harvard University Press. 

Lindzen, R. T. S. (2001) Tes ti mony of Rich ard S. Lindzen 

be fore the Sen ate En vi ron ment and Pub lic Works Com - 

mit tee on 2 May. Sci ence and En vi ron ment Pol icy Pro - 

ject (SEPP). Avail able from 

Metz, B., O. Davidson, et al., eds. (2001) Mitigation. Cli - 

mate Change 2001. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Uni ver sity 

Press. 

Miller, C. (2001) “Hy brid Man age ment: Bound ary Or ga - 

nizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Governance 

in the Cli mate Re gime,” Science, Technology & 

Human Values 26, no. 4: 478–500. 

Oreskes, N., K. Shrader-Frechette, K. Belitz (1994). 

“Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical 

Mod els in the Earth Sci ences.” Science 263: 641- 

646. 

Price, D. K. (1965) The Scientific Estate. Cam bridge: 

Harvard University Press. 

Salter, L. (1988) Man dated Sci ence: Sci ence and Sci en - 

tists in the Mak ing of Stan dards. Boston: Kluwer. 

Sarewitz, D., and R. Pielke, Jr. (2000) “Break ing the 

Global-Warming Gridlock,” The Atlantic Monthly 286, 

no. 1: 55–64. 

Schnei der, S. (1989) “The Green house Ef fect: Sci ence 

and Pol icy,” Science 243, no. 4892: 771–81. 

SEPP. The Science and Environmental Policy Project. 

Avail able from 

Shackley, S. and B. Wynne (1995) “In te grat ing 

Knowledges for Cli mate Change: Pyr a mids, Nets and 

Un cer tain ties,” Global En vi ron men tal Change 5, no. 2: 

113–26. 

Shackley, S. and B. Wynne. (1997) “Global Warm ing Po - 

ten tials: Am bi gu ity or Pre ci sion as an Aid to Pol icy?” 

Cli mate Re search 8: 89–106. 

Shackley, S., J. Risbey, et al. (1998) “Ad just ing to Pol icy 

Ex pec ta tions in Cli mate Change Mod el ing: An In ter dis - 

ci plin ary Study of Flux Ad just ments in Cou pled At mo - 

sphere-ocean Gen eral Cir cu la tion Mod els,” Cen ter for 

Global Change Sci ence Re port, MIT. 

Star, S. and J. Griesemer. (1989) “In sti tu tional Ecol ogy, 

‘Trans la tions’ and Bound ary Ob jects: Am a teurs and 

Pro fes sion als in Berke ley’s Mu seum of Ver te brate Zo - 

ol ogy, 1907–39,” So cial Stud ies of Sci ence 19: 387– 

420. 

VanderSluijs, J., J. van Eijndhoven, S. Shackley, and 

B.Wynne. (1998) “An chor ing In stru ments in Sci ence 

for Pol icy,” So cial Stud ies of Sci ence 28, no. 2: 291– 

323. 

Wat son, Rob ert. (2001) Per sonal com mu ni ca tion at the 

17 th Ses sion of the IPCC in Accra, Ghana (March 4). 

Wat son, R., ed. (2001) Syn the sis Re port. Cli mate Change 

2001. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Uni ver sity Press. 

Wynne, B. (1989) “Sheepfarming af ter Chernobyl,” En vi - 

ron ment 31. 

Wynne, B. (1992) “Re con struct ing Pol icy Con struc tions 

and In ter ests in SSK,” So cial Stud ies of Sci ence 22, no. 

3: 575–80. 


113

Wynne, B. (1992a) “Mis un der stood Mis un der stand ing: 

So cial Iden ti ties and Pub lic Up take of Sci ence,” Pub lic 

Un der stand ing of Sci ence 1, no. 3: 281–304. 

Wynne, B. (1996) “SSK’s Iden tity Pa rade: Sign ing-Up, 

Off-and-On,” So cial Stud ies of Sci ence 26: 357–91. 

Ap pen dix: An An a lytic De scrip tion of the In ter gov ern men tal 

Panel on Cli mate Change 

The In ter gov ern men tal Panel on Cli mate 

Change (IPCC) is best de scribed in terms of its 

man date, its pro cess, and its spe cial de vel op - 

ment of a “Sum mary for Policymakers.” 

The IPCC as Man dated Sci ence 

The IPCC was de rived as a sci en tific ad vi - 

sory body to (a) as sess avail able sci en tific and 

socio-eco nomic in for ma tion on cli mate 

change and its im pacts and on the op tions for 

mit i gat ing cli mate change and adapt ing to it 

and (b) pro vide, on re quest, sci en tific, tech no - 

log i cal, and socio-eco nomic ad vice to the 

Con fer ence of the Par ties (CoP) to the United 

Na tions Frame work Con ven tion on Cli mate 

Change (UNFCCC) (IPCC Third As sess ment 

Re port Work ing Group III). It rep re sents a 

clas sic case of what Liora Salter has called 

man dated sci ence. The IPCC is asked to de ter - 

mine the cur rent state of knowl edge with re - 

gard to cli mate re search and in for ma tion in or - 

der to pro vide rel e vant ma te rial to a pol icy 

au di ence. 

Sci en tific as sess ments op er ate dif fer ently 

than tra di tional sci ence in their meth ods of re - 

view and cri te ria for ad e quacy. For ex am ple, in 

the area of sci ence as sess ment, sci en tists are 

en cour aged to eval u ate the over all state of 

knowl edge on a given pol icy is sue and to draw 

from multi-dis ci plin ary lit er a tures. This prac - 

tice in volves judg ments about who is in cluded 

in the as sess ment pro cess, what in for ma tion is 

con sid ered ac cept able and ad e quate for re - 

view, the ne go ti a tion of an ap pro pri ate in ter - 

pre ta tion among par tic i pat ing sci en tists, and 

the method for dis clos ing this in ter pre ta tion to 

a pol icy au di ence. Judg ments are made among 

a core group of cli mate sci en tists yet ex tend 

be yond the strict bound aries of sci en tific in - 

quiry. As sess ments have time-de pend ent and 

value-de pend ent as pects that force sci en tists 

to make tacit as sump tions about the needs of 

the “user” au di ence (i.e., policymakers) as 

they con tem plate and/or an tic i pate the ways 

in for ma tion will be used in the non-sci en tific 


114 

sphere and the sub se quent so cial and po lit i cal 

im pli ca tions of the in for ma tion de rived. Man - 

dated sci ence is thus “a hy brid ac tiv ity in 

which sci en tific ex per tise is ac com pa nied by a 

con sid er able amount of so cial and po lit i cal 

judg ment” (Farrell et al., 2001). Yet man dated 

sci ence is ac com pa nied by a strong be lief that 

sci en tific con tri bu tions should nev er the less be 

ob jec tive and value-neu tral (Jasanoff, 1990, 

and Salter, 1988). 

The IPCC Pro cess 

The pro cess of pro duc ing an IPCC as sess - 

ment is long and com plex. In ter na tional teams 

of Lead Au thors (LA), nom i nated by coun tries 

and se lected by the IPCC Bu reau (a group of 

ex perts cho sen by the two spon sor ing or ga ni - 

za tions (United Na tions En vi ron ment 

Programme and World Me te o ro log i cal Or ga - 

ni za tion), are or ga nized into Lead Au thor writ - 

ing teams that spend sev eral years pre par ing 

in di vid ual chap ters in each of three Work ing 

Groups. In the 2001 re port, these three re ports 

ex am ined the cli mate sci ence (WG I), cli mate 

change im pacts and ad ap ta tion is sues (WG II), 

and strat e gies for mit i ga tion (WG III). While 

WGI has fo cused on the sci ence of cli mate 

change in all three as sess ment re ports, the 

char ac ter iza tions of WG II and WG III have 

changed slightly over the course of IPCC his - 

tory. Upon com ple tion of the chap ters, col - 

lected into one vol ume for each Work ing 

Group, the co or di nat ing lead au thors (CLA) of 

each chap ter syn the size the key find ings of 

their chap ter into an ex ec u tive sum mary (ES). 

These ex ec u tive sum ma ries are col lated into 

an over all tech ni cal sum mary for each work - 

ing group re port rep re sent ing key sci en tific 

find ings (see Fig ure 1). 

Dur ing its prep a ra tion, each WG re port un - 

der goes two stages of re view. The “first or der 

draft” of the WG doc u ment pre pared by Lead 

Au thor writ ing teams, is ini tially re viewed by 

ex perts ex ter nal to the IPCC pro cess for its 

tech ni cal in for ma tion and con sis tency. Ex pert

Fig ure 1: The Struc ture of 2001 IPCC Re ports 

com ments and changes are in te grated into a 

“sec ond or der draft” WG doc u ment by the 

Lead Au thor teams and cir cu lated for ex pert 

and gov ern men tal re view. A fi nal draft is then 

pre pared by the Lead Au thor teams and sub - 

mit ted to the IPCC Ple nary. No IPCC doc u - 

ments are of fi cial un til they are consensually 

ac cepted, in the case of WG re ports, or ap - 

proved, in the case of the SPM, by par tic i pat - 

ing gov ern ments. The ini tial draft of a “sum - 

mary for policymakers” is writ ten by the 

tech ni cal sup port unit (TSU), in com bi na tion 

with co or di nat ing lead au thors of the var i ous 

chap ters, for each work ing group. The pur pose 

is to syn the size and sim plify the thou sands of 

pages of the un der ly ing as sess ment re ports 

into a draft that pro vides the most rel e vant sci - 

en tific in for ma tion for a pol icy au di ence. [In 

or der to min i mize bu reau cratic costs, the IPCC 

ro tates the co or di nat ing re spon si bil i ties of var - 

i ous work ing groups to par tic i pat ing de vel - 

oped na tions. The role of the TSU is to co or di - 

nate in for ma tion and cover the op er at ing 

ex penses in volved in pre par ing the doc u ments 

and WG re ports. The fa cil i ta tor or co-chair for 

the WG is cho sen from this coun try in com bi - 

na tion with a co-chair from a de vel op ing na - 

tion.] The SPM un der goes ex pert and gov ern - 

men tal re view and, in a com plex ple nary 

pro cess (de scribed be low), is ne go ti ated by all 

par tic i pat ing gov ern ments and is consensually 

ap proved through a line-by-line process. 

The Syn the sis Re port (SYR) is a syn the sis 

of the three un der ly ing WG re ports. It is an at - 

tempt to tran scend the dis ci plin ary si los of the 

WG’s in or der to de rive and in te grate the key 

find ings rel e vant for in ter na tional 

policymakers. The Syn the sis Re port of the 

Third As sess ment was or ga nized in terms of 

nine (orig i nally ten) pol icy rel e vant sci en tific 

ques tions (PRSQ) that de fine the chap ters of 

the re port. The nine ques tions were de rived by 

the Bu reau and ne go ti ated and ap proved by 

COP del e ga tions. This ap proach at tempted to 

in te grate in ter pre ta tions of what is rel e vant to 

the in ter na tional pol icy sphere at the front-end 

of the SYR draft ing pro cess. The SYR went 

through an ex pert and gov ern men tal re view 

pro cess and was also put through a line-by-line 

ap proval pro cess sim i lar to the SPM. The SYR 

is also ac com pa nied by a sum mary for 

policymakers (SPM), a pol icy rel e vant syn the - 

sis of the syn the sis, which un der goes the same 

line-by-line ap proval pro cess. 

The Sum mary for Policymakers (SPM) 

While the ini tial draft of the sum mary for 

policymakers is writ ten and re viewed by sci en - 

tists, sub se quent it er a tions are cre ated through 

a pro cess of ne go ti a tion be tween sci en tists and 

gov ern men tal del e gates (here af ter these rep re - 

sen ta tives will be re ferred to as policymakers) 

through what is called the Ses sion of the Panel 

or IPCC Ple nary. This re fers to a se ries of 

meet ings of the Bu reau, lead au thors, and gov - 

ern men tal rep re sen ta tives held at the ple nary 

level of the IPCC, and in cludes non-gov ern - 

men tal or ga ni za tions (NGO) as ob serv ers. 

The ini tial draft of the SPM is re viewed by 

ex perts and par tic i pat ing del e ga tions for their 


115

ex am i na tion of the con tent, em pha sis, and 

clar ity of in for ma tion, and for their com ments 

on ar eas for re vi sion. These ex pert and gov ern - 

ment com ments are col lated and ac cepted or 

re jected in a meet ing of lead au thors and a new 

draft is pre pared. All com ments that are re - 

jected must be ac com pa nied by a ra tio nale for 

its ex clu sion in or der to en sure con sis tency and 

fair ness. This re vised draft is then in tro duced 

into the IPCC Ple nary, where policymakers 

and sci en tists are both pres ent. The 

policymakers then fol low a line-by-line re view 

of the text of the draft SPM, in which they can 

ob ject to text or pro pose new text. How ever, all 

pro posed al ter ations of the re port can only be 

jus ti fied if they are con sis tent with the un der - 

ly ing text in the WG re ports. Lead au thors at - 

tend the meet ing to an swer ques tions and to 

scru ti nize the bound aries of sci ence in or der to 

en sure that the un der ly ing work ing group re - 

ports are not mis in ter preted or trans formed 

(de spite the many changes in em pha sis and se - 

man tics) in the SPM doc u ment. Con sis tent 

with the re quire ment to be “pol icy rel e vant but 

not pol icy pre scrip tive,” much at ten tion is paid 

to elim i nat ing pre scrip tive word ing or any pre - 

scrip tive em pha sis in the in for ma tion. 

It is typ i cal for the orig i nal draft of the SPM 

to be sig nif i cantly al tered and trans formed in 

or der to meet the needs of par tic i pat ing del e ga - 

tions. This ne go ti a tion of the rel e vant sci en - 

tific in for ma tion by policymakers takes place 

within an over all con sen sus pro cess where all 

pro posed changes must be unan i mously ap - 

proved by the en tire Panel. “Ap proval” in the 

SPM sig ni fies that the ma te rial has been sub - 

jected to de tailed, line-by-line dis cus sion and 

agree ment (see IPCC def i ni tions, Ap pen dix A, 

in the Pro ce dures for the Prep a ra tion, Re view, 

Ac cep tance, Adop tion and Ap proval and Pub - 

li ca tion of IPCC Re ports, 1999). Con ten tious 

is sues are del e gated to “con tact groups,” con - 

sist ing of rep re sen ta tives of those gov ern - 

ments in ter ested in the pro posed text, to gether 

with the LA’s re spon si ble for the un der ly ing 

text, and then brought back to the full ple nary 

for dis cus sion and ap proval. Par tic u larly “hot” 

top ics thus tend to be de bated and ap proved at 

the end of what is usu ally an ex tremely long 

and tir ing multi-day meet ing, where ses sions 

of ten be gin at 8:00 a.m. and end past mid night 

at times, for four or five days in a row. 

What is con structed and pro duced by this 

pro cess is a hy brid doc u ment that is in tended 

to be both sci en tif i cally cred i ble and po lit i - 

cally ap proved or au tho rized. There are a num - 

ber of prob lems of eq uity in volved in this form 

of con sen sus ne go ti a tion. Dis crep an cies be - 

tween de vel oped and de vel op ing coun tries 

with re gard to ex per tise, au thor ity, and man - 

age ment are a sys temic prob lem, de spite ef - 

forts made by the IPCC for de vel op ing coun try 

in volve ment (Lahsen 2000; and Kandlikar and 

Sagar 1999). Rob ert Wat son, the pre vi ous 

chair of the IPCC, sees this com bined ef fort as 

a way to strengthen the pro cess of in ter na tional 

as sess ment (per sonal comm., 2001). He ar - 

gues that by in clud ing the in ter na tional po lit i - 

cal au di ence in the con struc tion of a pol icy rel - 

e vant sci en tific doc u ment, the pro cess of 

in ter na tional treaty mak ing be comes a more 

ef fi cient and uni fied ex pe ri ence. In the syn the - 

sis of the per ti nent cli mate re search, the SPM 

pro cess pro vides a frame work for na tions to 

ne go ti ate their par tic u lar con cerns, re ac tions 

and in ter pre ta tions of the same sci en tific in for - 

ma tion in an open forum. 

The SPM pro cess con trib utes to a trans la - 

tion and in ter pre ta tion of rel e vant in for ma tion 

within a gov ern men tal frame work or au tho riz - 

ing fo rum. How ever, it is ap par ent that the con - 

tent of the SPM is driven by a pro cess that be - 

gins with the fram ing and ar tic u la tion of key 

sci en tific find ings by the sci en tific com mu - 

nity. As a re sult, the in for ma tion in the SPM 

may con sist of key find ings that are con sid ered 

sci en tif i cally in ter est ing but not nec es sar ily 

the most use ful for pol icy. In or der to ad dress 

this prob lem, in the Third As sess ment Re port 

(TAR) pro cess, the IPCC Bu reau in tro duced a 

new, more pol icy re spon sive ap proach in the 

or ga ni za tion of the Syn the sis Re port (a sum - 

mary of all work ing group in for ma tion from 

all three as sess ment re ports as well as any 

IPCC spe cial re ports). The Syn the sis Re port 

rep re sents an at tempt to in clude policymakers 

in the pro cess of de riv ing and fram ing rel e vant 

sci en tific in for ma tion by hav ing them ar tic u - 

late a set of pol icy rel e vant sci en tific ques tions 

(PRSQ). 

Policy Relevant Scientific Questions 

(PRSQ) 

Ten pol icy rel e vant sci en tific ques tions 

(PRSQ) (later con sol i dated to nine) con sid - 

ered im por tant to in ter na tional policymaking 

and re quir ing sci en tific as sess ment were 

drafted by the Bu reau and ne go ti ated and 

agreed to by the in ter na tional pol icy com mu - 


116

nity in San Jose, Costa Rica in 1999. These 

ques tions de ter mined the struc ture of the Syn - 

the sis Re port (SYR) and acted to guide sci en - 

tists in draft ing its text. Their job was to syn - 

the size the un der ly ing Work ing Group re ports, 

tech ni cal sum ma ries, and SPM’s as an swers to 

the PRSQs, each of which de fined a chap ter in 

the SYR. The SYR pro cess thus fa cil i tated the 

front-end in volve ment of the pol icy com mu - 

nity to frame the way sci en tific in for ma tion 

was col lated and de fined the terms of what was 

pre sented. This al lowed policymakers to play a 

greater role in the de ter mi na tion of pol icy rel e - 

vance. This re port also al lowed the IPCC sci - 

en tific pro cess to be in te grated in a more ex - 

plicit way with the con cur rent po lit i cal pro cess 

of the COP. 

These SPM and PRSQ ap proaches fa cil i tate 

a ne go ti a tion of tasks and in for ma tion that de - 

pends less on tech ni cal in for ma tion and more 

on com mu ni ca tion and co or di na tion be tween 

the pol icy and sci en tific com mu nity. The SPM 

and the PRSQ can thus pro vide the ba sis for an 

ex plo ra tion of the ways these in stru ments re - 

ne go ti ate the bound aries of and in ter ac tions 

be tween sci ence and pol icy. 


117

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

Andoni Alonso (Universidad de Extremadura, Spain) holds a doc tor ate in phi los o phy from the 

Uni ver sity of the Basque Coun try. His pub li ca tions in clude schol arly works (which have ap - 

peared in Basque, Span ish, and Eng lish) on Wittgenstein, art, phi los o phy of tech nol ogy, and sci - 

ence-tech nol ogy-so ci ety stud ies, as well as pub lic af fairs com men tary on com puter cul ture and 

sci ence lit er acy. His most re cent books (co-authored with Inaki Arzoz) are Basque 

Cyberculture: From Dig i tal Euskadi to CyberEuskalherria (Reno, NV: Cen ter for Basque Stud - 

ies, 2003) and Carta al Homo ciberneticus: Un man ual de Ciencia, Tecnologia y Sociedad 

activista para el siglo XXI (Ma drid: Edaf, 2004). 

Adam Briggle (Uni ver sity of Col o rado) is a doc toral stu dent in the En vi ron men tal Stud ies pro - 

gram. His re search fo cuses on the in ter face of the hu man i ties and sci ence and tech nol ogy pol icy. 

Carlos Cas tro (Junta de Extremadura) is Dean of the School for Biblioteconomy and Doc u men - 

ta tion and Di rec tor of the In for ma tion So ci ety De part ment. His re search in ter ests in clude 

cyberculture and the in no va tion and use of in for ma tion tech nol o gies for re gional de vel op ment. 

He con trib uted to de vel op ment of the Linex cur ric u lum. 

Eric Co hen (Eth ics and Pub lic Pol icy Cen ter, Wash ing ton, DC) is di rec tor of the Bio tech nol ogy 

and Amer i can De moc racy pro gram and co-di rec tor of the pro gram on Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and 

So ci ety at the Cen ter and a se nior con sul tant to the Pres i dent’s Coun cil on Bioethics. He is also 

the ed i tor of the Cen ter’s jour nal The New Atlantis. He is co-ed i tor (with Wil liam Kristol) of The 

Fu ture is Now: Amer ica Con fronts the New Ge net ics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 

2002). 

Fernando Solís Fernández (Junta de Extremadura) is the sub-del e gate from the Span ish Gov - 

ern ment at Extremadura. For merly a high civil ser vant, he has also lec tured on dif fer ent ad min is - 

tra tive as pects of gov ern ment-funded re search and de vel op ment. His most re cent work has been 

as di rec tor of Higher Ed u ca tion and Re search in Extremadura. 

Erik Fisher (Uni ver sity of Col o rado) is a doc toral stu dent in En vi ron men tal Stud ies and teaches 

hu man i ties and Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and So ci ety Stud ies. His work cen ters on in te grat ing 

philo soph i cal in quiry into en gi neer ing ed u ca tion and tech nol ogy pol icy. 

Guillermo Foladori (Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas) is re search fel low at the Doc toral 

Pro gram on De vel op ment Stud ies. His work fo cuses on the con tra dic tory de vel op ment of so cial 

and eco log i cal sustainability. He is au thor of Con tro ver sies on Sustainability (Ciudad de 

México: M. A. Porrúa/UAZ, 2001) and co-ed i tor (with Naína Pierri) of Sustainability? Dis - 

agree ments on Sus tain able De vel op ment (Mon te vi deo: Trabajo y Cap i tal, 2002). 

Rob ert Frodeman (Uni ver sity of North Texas) is chair of the De part ment of Phi los o phy and 

Re li gion Stud ies. His wancement of Genomics where she works on re search pol icy is sues in 

stem cell ap pli ca tions, new tech nol o gies in genomics, and bi o log i cal en ergy al ter na tives. She re - 

ceived her Ph.D. in 1993 in Mi cro bi ol ogy from the Uni ver sity of Wash ing ton. 

Ambrosio Velasco Gómez (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mex ico) earned a doc tor ate in 

the Phi los o phy and His tory of Po lit i cal The ory from the Uni ver sity of Min ne sota. He is the au - 


118

thor of Nat u ral is tic and Her me neu tic Tra di tions in the Phi los o phy of So cial Sci ences (Mex ico: 

ENEP Acatlan, UNAM, 1998). 

Matthias Gross (Universitaet Bielefeld, Ger many) co-di rects the “Real-World Ex per i ment Pro - 

ject” at the In sti tute for Sci ence and Tech nol ogy Stud ies. His re search in ter ests in clude the his - 

tory of so ci ol ogy and ecol ogy, clas si cal so cial the ory, and the so ci ol ogy of sur prises. He is the 

au thor of Die Natur der Gesellschaft: Eine Geschichte der Umweltsoziologie (Mu nich: Juventa, 

2001) and In vent ing Na ture: Eco log i cal Res to ra tion by Pub lic Ex per i ments (Lanham, MD: 

Rowman and Littlefield, 2003). 

Noela Invernizzi (Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas) is re search fel low at the Doc toral Pro - 

gram on De vel op ment Stud ies and pro fes sor at Universidade Fed eral do Paraná. Her re search in - 

ter est is the re la tion ship be tween in dus trial in no va tion and workforce skills and em ploy ment 

con di tions. She is au thor of Flex i ble and Dis ci plined: Bra zil ian Work ers fac ing In dus trial Re - 

structuring (Ciudad de México: M. A. Porrúa/UAZ, 2004). 

Philip Kitcher (Co lum bia Uni ver sity) is pro fes sor of phi los o phy and cur ric u lum co or di na tor. 

His re search and teach ing in ter ests in clude the phi los o phy of sci ence, with a fo cus on bi ol ogy 

and math e mat ics. He is au thor of Sci ence, Truth and De moc racy (New York: Ox ford Uni ver sity 

Press, 2001) and In Men del’s Mir ror: Philo soph i cal Re flec tions on Bi ol ogy (New York: Ox ford 

Uni ver sity Press, 2003). 

Wolfgang Krohn (Universitaet Bielefeld, Ger many) co-di rects the “Real-World Ex per i ment 

Pro ject” at the In sti tute for Sci ence and Tech nol ogy Stud ies and is pro fes sor of the so cial stud ies 

of sci ence and tech nol ogy. His re search in ter ests range from the so cial or i gins of mod ern sci ence 

to the spread of re search strat e gies in mod ern “knowl edge” so ci et ies. 

Juan Carlos Lucena (Col o rado School of Mines), a na tive of Bogotá, Co lom bia, cur rently di - 

rects the CSM McBride Hon ors Pro gram in Pub lic Af fairs for En gi neers. His re search fo cuses on 

com par a tive en gi neer ing cul tures. 

Luis Cosas Luengo (Junta de Extremadura) is Man ag ing Di rec tor of the Foun da tion for the De - 

vel op ment of the Sci ences and Tech nol ogy. He holds a Grad u ate De gree in Law and works on 

Eu ro pean Com mu nity Law at the Eu ro pean Stud ies Cen tre of Universidad de Alcalá de Henares. 

He has also served as the Head of the Extremadura Li ai son Of fice to the Eu ro pean Com mu ni ties 

in Brussels. 

Carl Mit cham (Col o rado School of Mines) is a pro fes sor of Lib eral Arts and 

In ter na tional Stud ies. His pub li ca tions in clude Think ing through Tech nol ogy: The Path be tween 

En gi neer ing and Phi los o phy (Chi cago: Uni ver sity of Chi cago Press, 

1994) and (with R. Shan non Duval) En gi neer’s Toolkit: En gi neer ing Eth ics 

(Up per Sad dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000). He is ed i tor in chief of the 

multi-vol ume En cy clo pe dia of Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and Eth ics, forth com ing 

from Macmillan Ref er ence. 

John Robinson (Uni ver sity of Brit ish Co lum bia) is a pro fes sor at the Sus tain able De vel op ment 

Re search Ini tia tive and in the De part ment of Ge og ra phy. His work fo cuses on in ter ac tive and 

par tic i pa tory ways of col lect ing and us ing sustainability knowl edge in or der to ad vance 

sustainability re search, to si mul ta neously in te grate and ed u cate pub lic un der stand ing and to 

con trib ute to com plex pol icy de ci sions. He is co-ed i tor (with Ann Dale) of Achiev ing Sus tain - 

able De vel op ment (Van cou ver: Uni ver sity of Brit ish Co lum bia Press, 1996). 

CONTRIBUTORS 

119

Tind Shepper Ryen (Uni ver sity of Col o rado) is a doc toral stu dent in the En vi ron men tal Stud ies 

pro gram at CU. His re search fo cuses on fed eral sci ence de ci sion mak ing and US space pol icy. 

Dan iel Sarewitz (Ar i zona State Uni ver sity) is man ag ing di rec tor of the Con sor tium for Sci ence, 

Pol icy, and Out comes (CSPO). His work fo cuses on un der stand ing the con nec tions be tween sci - 

en tific re search and so cial ben e fit, and on de vel op ing meth ods and pol i cies to strengthen such 

con nec tions. He is au thor of Fron tiers of Il lu sion: Sci ence, Tech nol ogy, and the Pol i tics of Prog - 

ress (1996) and one of the ed i tors of Liv ing with the Ge nie: Es says on Tech nol ogy and the Quest 

for Hu man Mas tery (2003). 

Alison Shaw (Uni ver sity of Brit ish Co lum bia) is a doc toral can di date in the Re source Man age - 

ment En vi ron men tal Stud ies pro gram at UBC. Her re search fo cuses on the sci ence pol icy in ter - 

face in the In ter gov ern men tal Panel on Cli mate Change (IPCC). 

Kristin Shrader-Frechette (Uni ver sity of No tre Dame) is pro fes sor of phi los o phy and bi o log i - 

cal sci ences. Her work cov ers sev eral ar eas in pub lic pol icy and the phi los o phy of sci ence. Most 

re cently, she has authored En vi ron men tal Jus tice: Cre at ing Equal ity, Re claim ing De moc racy 

(New York: Ox ford Uni ver sity Press, 2002) and co-ed ited (with Laura Westra) Tech nol ogy and 

Hu man Val ues (Sav age, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997). 

Rama Mohana Turaga (Geor gia In sti tute of Tech nol ogy) BS and MS de grees in Civil En gi - 

neer ing from Andhra Uni ver sity and the In dian In sti tute of Tech nol ogy, Kharagpur, re spec - 

tively, and is cur rently a doc toral stu dent of Pub lic Pol icy at Geor gia Tech. He has worked as an 

en gi neer and en vi ron men tal pol icy an a lyst. 

Uday Turaga (Penn syl va nia State Uni ver sity) holds BS and MS de grees in Chem is try from the 

Uni ver sity of Delhi, In dia, and a re cent doc tor ate in Fuel Sci ence from Penn State. He has pub - 

lished widely in In dia and the United States on sci ence pol icy is sues. He is cur rently em ployed at 

the Bartlesville Tech nol ogy Cen ter of ConocoPhillips do ing re search on sorbent de vel op ment. 


120

Toward a Philosophy of Science Policy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?