Science and government: can the power struggle ever end?

Rhona Mijumbi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00328-w

IF: 64.8

2024-02-06

Nature

Abstract:Similar goals but different strategies underlie tensions between science and the state, an in-depth analysis explains. Similar goals but different strategies underlie tensions between science and the state, an in-depth analysis explains.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high‐conflict policy contexts?

Tanya Heikkila,Christopher M. Weible,Andrea K. Gerlak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12655

IF: 3.5

2020-03-19

Public Administration

Abstract:<p>Researchers struggle to understand the relationship between science and policy positions, especially the complicated interplay among the various factors that might affect the acceptance or rejection of scientific information. This paper presents a typology that simplifies and guides research linking scientific information to policy positions. We use the typology to examine how characteristics of both scientific information and policy actors' existing policy positions affect the likelihood of changing, maintaining, or reinforcing those policy positions. We analyse data from surveys conducted in 2015 and 2017 of policy actors engaged in contested policy debates over shale oil and gas development in Colorado, U.S. Our findings confirm expectations that policy actors will most likely maintain and reinforce their policy positions in response to scientific information. Our data also show that changes in policy positions depend on policy actors' risk perceptions, perceived issue contentiousness, networks, and experience with science.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>

public administration,political science
The Science-Politics Power Struggle

Helen Pearson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58875/lexw7503

2024-04-01

Issues in science and technology

Abstract:Review of "When Science Meets Power" by Geoff Mulgan.

engineering, industrial, multidisciplinary,multidisciplinary sciences,social issues
History of science and American science policy.

Zuoyue Wang,Naomi Oreskes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/588694

2010-01-01

Isis

Abstract:Historians of science have participated actively in debates over American science policy in the post-World War II period in a variety of ways, but their impact has been more to elucidate general concepts than to effect specific policy changes. Personal experiences, in the case of the debate over global warming, have demonstrated both the value and the limits of such involvement for the making of public policy. To be effective, historians of science need to strive for clarity in public expression, to accept the importance of engaging with the public at all levels and through diverse media, and, above all, to recognize that the nature of such debates will make normal scholarly nuance hard to achieve. Moreover, in the current political climate, historians may be surprised to find themselves defending sciences, when the usual stance of historians is to be critical.
Private interests count too: commentary on "Science, democracy, and the right to research"

Mark S Frankel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9137-2

Abstract:Along with concerns about the deleterious effects of politically driven government intervention on science are the intrusion of private sector interests into the conduct of research and the reporting of its results. Scientists are generally unprepared for the challenges posed by private interests seeking to advance their economic, political, or ideological agendas. They must educate and prepare themselves for assaults on scientific freedom, not because it is a legal right, but rather because social progress depends on it.
Science is neither red nor blue

Marcia McNutt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu4907

IF: 56.9

2024-11-18

Science

Abstract:Long before the 5 November US presidential election, I had become ever more concerned that science has fallen victim to the same political divisiveness tearing at the seams of American society. This is a tragedy because science is the best—arguably the only—approach humankind has developed to peer into the future, to project the outcomes of various possible decisions using the known laws of the natural world. Since the founding of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) during the Civil War, the most divisive period in US history, science and the NAS (of which I am the current president) have consistently served the nation, regardless of the political party in power. As the scientific community continues to do so now, it must take a critical look at what responsibility it bears in science becoming politically contentious, and how scientists can rebuild public trust.

multidisciplinary sciences
‘Nothing to do with the science’: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government

Melanie Smallman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719879768

2019-10-11

Social Studies of Science

Abstract:That policymakers adopt technoscientific viewpoints and lack reflexivity is a common criticism of scientific decision-making, particularly in response to moves to democratize science. Drawing on interviews with UK-based national policymakers, I argue that an elite sociotechnical imaginary of ‘science to the rescue’ shapes how public perspectives are heard and distinguishes what is considered to be legitimate expertise. The machinery of policy-making has become shaped around this imaginary – particularly its focus on science as a problem-solver and on social and ethical issues as ‘nothing to do with the science’ – and this gives this viewpoint its power, persistence and endurance. With this imaginary at the heart of policy-making machinery, regardless of the perspectives of the policymakers, alternative views of science are either forced to take the form of the elite imaginary in order to be processed, or they simply cannot be accounted for within the policy-making processes. In this way, the elite sociotechnical imaginary (and technoscientific viewpoint) is enacted, but also elicited and perpetuated, without the need for policymakers to engage with or even be aware of the imaginary underpinning their actions.

history & philosophy of science
Etel Solingen, ed.," Scientists and the State: Domestic Structures and the International Context"(Book Review)

Zuoyue Wang

1996-01-01

Technology and Culture

Abstract:The aim of this book is to analyze the impact of the various aspects of the modern state on the political economy of science. Editor Etel Solingen, assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, promises “a heavily comparative analytical flavor"(p. 3). Historians of science and technology will likely find this volume, like many studies by political scientists, both interesting and frustrating. The outcome of a workshop held at UCLA in January 1990, the book consists of an introductory chapter by Solingen and nine case studies. These offer descriptions of the evolution of the scientist-state relationship by experts on science policy in the United States, France, Japan, China, the former Soviet Union, Brazil, Germany, India, andIsrael. Solingen's comparative framework has two layers. The first she calls “state forms," which are defined by both the political system and the economic organization of a …
Conclusion: Science, Policy, and the Governance of Complex Systems

Oran R. Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035934.003.0009

2017-01-01

Abstract:Success in efforts to achieve sustainability in the Anthropocene requires overcoming the influence of business as usual in thinking about governance strategies and guarding against path dependence as a barrier to creating and implementing innovative governance systems to deal with the challenges of complex systems. Research opportunities in this setting involve an examination of ways to transcend the regulatory paradigm, to improve understanding of the relationships between institutions and organizations, to devise strategies for combining nimbleness and durability, to think about methods for making choices under uncertainty, and to develop a methodological toolkit including both qualitative and quantitative modes of analysis. Lessons for policymakers center on the need to rethink orthodox preferences regarding governance systems, expand the repertoire of practices, make maximum use of decision support tools, and take advantage of new technologies allowing for dramatic improvements in the ability to monitor complex systems. Some observers have pointed to the need for fundamental changes required to address the challenges of the Anthropocene and stressed the danger that analysts who seek to engage with the policy community will suffer from cooptation. While this is a legitimate concern, there is a strong case for strengthening the science/policy collaboration in building social capital for the Anthropocene. Both the science community and the policy community have comparative advantages that can be harnessed to achieve success in addressing the novel challenges of governing complex systems in the Anthropocene.
How scientists should disagree

Alex B. Berezow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03430-x

IF: 3.953

2024-07-25

Pediatric Research

Abstract:Reflecting broader societal trends, a lack of civility has crept its way into scientific discourse. It has become routine for scientists who disagree with each other to make disparaging accusations, most commonly that they are "shills" or are being paid off by an interest group. Instead, we should keep four things in mind: (1) Most scientists who disagree with you are well-intentioned; (2) There could be a failure to communicate; (3) "Hanlon's Razor" — which asserts that we should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" — is probably true; and (4) Like all humans, scientists have pride and do not like to be proven wrong. Most disagreements result from some combination of these. Only rarely should we consider that a disagreement is the result of something more nefarious, like corruption.

pediatrics
Why we need a body to oversee how science is used by governments

Chris Tyler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03758-8

IF: 64.8

2024-11-24

Nature

Abstract:In a frank account, a former adviser spills the beans on how evidence shapes policy. In a frank account, a former adviser spills the beans on how evidence shapes policy.

multidisciplinary sciences
Elite science and the BBC: a 1950s contest of ownership

Allan Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087413000927

Abstract:In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the elite world of institutional British science attempted to take control of the BBC's management of science broadcasting. Delegations of scientists met BBC managers to propose an increased role for scientists in planning science broadcasts to a degree that threatened to compromise the BBC's authority and autonomy. The culmination was a set of proposals to the Pilkington Committee in 1960, principally from the Royal Society and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, under which a scientist-manager was to be appointed head of a unified science division in the BBC. BBC managers resisted these proposals. The outcome, in 1964, was a compromise giving the scientists little of what they wanted, and proving practically and strategically useful for the BBC. The article frames the story as a contest of jurisdiction between elite science and the BBC, and draws on scholarship relating to the social nature of authority and professions, and to the popularization of science. It shows the fundamentally different beliefs held by the scientists and the BBC about the purpose of science broadcasts and about the nature of the audience. The historical narrative is based on unpublished archive documents, and it contributes to the small but growing body of work on the historical background to the presentation of science in the broadcast media.
Moral entrepreneurship, the power-knowledge nexus, and the Cochrane "crisis"

Trisha Greenhalgh,Mustafa F Ozbilgin,Barbara Prainsack,Sara Shaw

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13124

Abstract:Background: In 2018, a so-called crisis developed in the international network of systematic reviewers known as Cochrane. It was widely depicted in terms of two competing narratives-"bad behaviour" by one member of Cochrane's Governing Board and scientific and moral decline within Cochrane. Objective: Our goal was to distil insights on the structural issues underpinning the crisis, without taking a definitive position on the accuracy of either narrative. Approach and dataset: In this paper, we draw on (among other theories) Becker's notion of moral entrepreneurship and Foucault's conceptualisation of power to analyse the claims and counterclaims made by different parties. Our dataset consisted of publicly available materials (blogs, journal articles, newspaper articles) to end 2018, notably those relating to the expulsion of one Governing Board member. Main findings: Both narratives include strong moral claims about the science of systematic review and the governance of scientific organizations. The expelled individual and his supporters defined good systematic reviews in terms of a particular kind of methodological rigour and elimination of bias, and good governance largely in terms of measures to achieve independence from industry influence. Most of Cochrane's Governing Board and their sympathizers evaluated systematic reviews according to a broader range of criteria, incorporating factors such as attention to relationships among reviewers and reflexivity and dialogue around scientific and other judgements. They viewed governance partly in terms of accountability to an external advisory group. Power-knowledge alignments in Cochrane have emerged from, and contributed to, a particular system of meaning which is now undergoing evolution and challenge. Conclusion: Polarizing Cochrane's "crisis" into two narratives, only one of which is true, is less fruitful than viewing it in terms of a duality consisting of tensions between the two positions, each of which has some validity. Having framed the conflict as primarily philosophical and political rather than methodological and procedural, we suggest how Cochrane and its supporters and critics might harness their tensions productively.
Science and Humanity: from Contradiction to Cooperation

HUANG Ming

2006-01-01

Abstract:The contradiction between science and humanity exists not only in the different disciplines,but also between two kinds of modes of thought,that is universalism and particularism,even more widely between two kinds of culture.However,science and humanity should cooperate with each other in current development of human knowledge on the way of trans-disciplines and cross-culture.The grounding is the need of government of the country in the social sciences,the essence of the actual world between natural sciences and humanities,and the integration of human culture in the two kinds of culture.
The Science Wars: a pox on both their houses

Stephen Boughn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10461.08169

2023-02-20

Abstract:According to physicist David Mermin, the science wars was a series of exchanges between scientists and "sociologists, historians, and literary critics" whom the scientists thought to be "ludicrously ignorant of science, making all kinds of nonsensical pronouncements." The science wars peaked in 1996 with the publication of a hoax article by physicist Alan Sokal in a cultural studies journal and then seemed mercifully to die away by the end of the 1990's. I recently noticed, however, that the kerfuffle has persisted. This motivated me to pen this essay and point out the silliness of the entire affair.

History and Philosophy of Physics
On Scientific Publication and Politics

Dimitri A. Christakis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2999

2024-10-08

JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract:Science is an iterative and imperfect process that arcs toward truth. Increasingly, the process itself is being criticized because findings are sometimes contradictory. The COVID-19 epidemic put this into sharp relief as we learned more about the effectiveness of preventive and treatment actions and recommendations accordingly evolved. Findings were filtered, amplified, interpreted, and disseminated through political channels. JAMA Pediatrics remains committed to publishing the best science that advances all domains of pediatric health regardless of its political implications.

pediatrics
When the science encounters "the others"

Shuang YU,Xiao-ming SHENG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-2053.2017.03.001

2017-01-01

Abstract:According to the ideal premise of "autonomy",science is the business only in the scientific communities.In fact,during the whole process of the evolution of the science,there are many conflicts between the science itself and " the others"——religious groups,humanists,governments,industries and the public——which resulting in many kinds of value disputes and social controversies.The social governance of science requires scientific communities not to view " the others" as the destroyers of scientific values any more,but as the collaborators.However,the rise of populism put this transformation into a dilemma.Therefore,performing the national policy of the" Public Innovation" not only need the public understand the science,but also need the scientists understand the public.
Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science

Richard Whitley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00112-9

IF: 7.2

2003-06-01

Research Policy

Abstract:The role of the public sciences in supporting the growth of new industries with radically innovative technologies has varied between countries that encourage different levels of reputational competition and intellectual pluralism and flexibility. These two characteristics of public science systems help to explain: (a) significant differences in the degree to which research is coordinated across universities and similar organisations to solve common problems and, (b) the ease with which new intellectual goals and approaches are developed and incorporated into research programmes to deal with new kinds of problems. They thus help to account for continuing differences in the rate at which public science systems produce highly novel intellectual innovations and deal with a variety of problems.These characteristics of public science systems are in turn affected by four major features of the institutional frameworks governing the production of public formal knowledge in different countries. These are: the extent of state delegation of employment and resources control to scientific elites, concentration of intellectual and administrative control within research organisations, the stability and strength of the hierarchy of research organisations, and organisational segmentation of research goals and labour markets. Together these features help to explain major differences in competition and pluralism between public science systems.

multidisciplinary sciences
Conflict of Interests in Scientific Activities: A Sociological Perspective

文剑英,王蒲生

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19484/j.cnki.1000-8934.2009.07.015

2009-01-01

Abstract:Conflict of interests(COIs) is a conflict between secondary interest and the primary one required by one's profession.COIs is ubiquitous.Yet COIs in scientific activities happens only after the institutionalization of science.The contractual relationship between science and society provides an institutional environment for the occurrence of COIs.The dual roles of scientists make it possible to occur.And some science and technology policies stimulate its development.
Contradiction or Cohesion? Tracing Questions of Protection and Fairness in Scientifically Driven Elite Sport Policies

Anna Posbergh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2022-0198

IF: 2.349

2023-01-01

Sociology of Sport Journal

Abstract:Much of the resistance and, at times, outright condemnation of including transgender individuals in sports continue to draw upon “scientific” arguments, despite the acknowledged importance of sociocultural and (geo)political factors, resulting in a constructed “either science or human rights” landscape. In this article, I analyze historical scientifically driven International Olympic Committee documents and policies from the Olympic Studies Center to examine if and how sport organizations, such as the International Olympic Committee, have historically balanced these seemingly partitioned considerations in previous regulatory documents, especially those relating to sex, gender, fairness, and protection. Using Sheila Jasanoff’s co-production, I find that, while knowledge informing policies sometimes circulates biologized gender stereotypes, sociocultural and scientific goals have, can, and should exist in cohesion rather than in contradiction .

hospitality, leisure, sport & tourism,sport sciences,sociology
Concluding Conversation: Decentring Science Diplomacy.

Gordon Barrett,Claire Edington,Aya Homei,Kate Sullivan de Edstrada,Zuoyue Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087424000475

2024-01-01

Abstract:Gordon Barrett (GB): Research Associate, Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester, UK (special issue co-editor).

Science and government: can the power struggle ever end?

When does science persuade (or not persuade) in high‐conflict policy contexts?

The Science-Politics Power Struggle

History of science and American science policy.

Private interests count too: commentary on "Science, democracy, and the right to research"

Science is neither red nor blue

‘Nothing to do with the science’: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government

Etel Solingen, ed.," Scientists and the State: Domestic Structures and the International Context"(Book Review)

Conclusion: Science, Policy, and the Governance of Complex Systems

How scientists should disagree

Why we need a body to oversee how science is used by governments

Elite science and the BBC: a 1950s contest of ownership

Moral entrepreneurship, the power-knowledge nexus, and the Cochrane "crisis"

Science and Humanity: from Contradiction to Cooperation

The Science Wars: a pox on both their houses

On Scientific Publication and Politics

When the science encounters "the others"

Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science

Conflict of Interests in Scientific Activities: A Sociological Perspective

Contradiction or Cohesion? Tracing Questions of Protection and Fairness in Scientifically Driven Elite Sport Policies

Concluding Conversation: Decentring Science Diplomacy.