United we fall

Book review: Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice / Michiel Schwarz and Michael Thompson. - Hemel Hempstead, Herts. & New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990. - ISBN 0745004164, 0745017872*pb

Should Social Amplification of Risk Be Counteracted?

The importance of the conceptual statement, by Roger Kasperson et al., on social amplification of risk lies, firstly, in the identification of a phenome-non as one worth studying, instead of being irritated and frustrated ibout it and concerned only to get it out of the way. Accusations of “public hysteria ” and “ irresponsible media ” are commonplace, without any real attempt at understanding causes and mecha-nisms, let alone a closer look at the normative qualifications of “ hysteria ” and “irre~ponsibility”.~ Kasperson et al. provide a forceful summing up of the limitations of traditional, technical risk analysis, and propose to overcome the limitations by adding the phenomenon of public reactions to risk and further repercussions (“secondary impacts”). One may wonder whether this is sufficient; but it clearly is necessary. Secondly, the attempt at systematic description usefully articulates a number of dimensions and aspects of the problem. The added benefit is that, in doing so, some of the ambiguities become apparent-of the proposed analysis, but also of the way we tend to treat the phenomena of social amplification of risk. For example, although the phenomenon is defined in a neutral way, in the introduction and later when communications theory is invoked (“amplification denotes the process of intensifying or attenuating signals during the transmission of infor

The Republic of Science in the 1990s

Research councils began as channels for state patronage of science (a widespread phenomenon after World War II) and were captured by the scientists: peer review of proposals, panels, board membership. In this way, they became an important organ of the lsquoRepublic of Sciencersquo (Michael Polanyi's concept). Being awarded a grant is now as important for the reputation or status of a scientist as the money value per se: research councils have become part of the reward system of science. Credibility-cycle analysis (Latour and Woolgar) is used to show this; and then applied to the research council itself, between the State and the national scientific community. Current concerns about proposal success rates and conservatism are analysed in terms of dynamics of this research world. This sociological approach to research councils allows analysis of changes in the reward system of science (where lsquorelevancersquo is becoming an accepted criterion world-wide) and of the complex environment of research councils, where many actors now compete for the intermediary role. Research councils must also become entrepreneurial-or become obsolete

A cognitive approach to science policy

Recent work in the social studies of science has emphasized the importance of studying both the social and cognitive aspects of the evolution of scientific specialties and disciplines. This has implications for science policies that aim at the direction of scientific fields toward external goals: the cognitive state and dynamics of the field have to be taken into acount. Such a cognitive approach to science policy has been elaborated by a number of German science scholars. The three-phase model of scientific developments and the finalization thesis of the Starnberg group is discussed, and the policy implications are critically reviewed. A group based in the University of Bielefeld has published case studies designed to trace the role of cognitive factors in explaining the impact of science policy programmes on scientific fields. It turns out that mutual adaptation processes occur in the course of formulating the programmes which reduce conflict and resistance. In conclusion, some perspectives for further work are noted

Scientists' coping strategies in an evolving research system: the case of life scientists in the UK

Scientists in academia have struggled to adjust to a policy climate of uncertain funding and loss of freedom from direction and control. How UK life scientists have negotiated this challenge, and with what consequences for their research and the research system, is the empirical entrance point of this paper. We find that policy impacts can be modulated and buffered by strategies and compromises devised and deployed at research performer level. This shifts conceptualisation from terms of responses to one of more or less proactive strategies of scientists and science organisations which add up, intentionally or unintentionally, to shifts in the overall system

The computer revolution in science: steps towards the realization of computer-supported discovery environments

The tools that scientists use in their search processes together form so-called discovery environments. The promise of artificial intelligence and other branches of computer science is to radically transform conventional discovery environments by equipping scientists with a range of powerful computer tools including large-scale, shared knowledge bases and discovery programs. We will describe the future computer-supported discovery environments that may result, and illustrate by means of a realistic scenario how scientists come to new discoveries in these environments. In order to make the step from the current generation of discovery tools to computer-supported discovery environments like the one presented in the scenario, developers should realize that such environments are large-scale sociotechnical systems. They should not just focus on isolated computer programs, but also pay attention to the question how these programs will be used and maintained by scientists in research practices. In order to help developers of discovery programs in achieving the integration of their tools in discovery environments, we will formulate a set of guidelines that developers could follow

Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands

A Program Committee Biotechnology was established in the Netherlands for the period 1981¿1985, to stimulate biotechnological research and its contribution to innovation. Effects of its activities on researchers and on the research system have been measured in terms of recognition of and commitment to the priorities and approaches of the Program Committee. Results from the questionnaire survey and the interviews are presented, and are used to assess the implementation strategy of the committee and the dynamics of orientation of researchers to new priorities. A consciously orchestrating strategy, with some accommodation to the interests of the field, appears to be productive. This may be a generally useful middle course between dirigism and laissez-faire, because it exploits the leverage that resides in the strategies of scientists to mobilize resources for their work

Social Robustness and the Mode 2 Diagnosis

The Hansen and Kurath articles in the December 2009 issue have public engagement as their topic, and mobilize the notion of ‘social robustness’ as discussed by Helga Nowotny, one of the Mode 2 authors (see Nowotny et al. 2001). Janus Hansen used it as a link with public engagement and offered a plea for comparative studies which he located in a conceptual critique of the Mode 2 thesis. Monika Kurath decided to use her version of the notion of ‘social robustness’ to evaluate attempts at regulation of, and engagement with, nanosciences and nanotechnologies, conjuring up ratings for each of the cases she described