Autonomous science, science for and science with the public

Autonomous science, science for and science with the publicExploring three ideals of the relationship between science and society

Mélissa Lieutenant-Gosselin, Ph. D. candidate, Public communication, Université Laval (Québec)

4S 40th Annual Meeting, Denver (Colorado)

• Shaken relationship between science and society• Science institutions and scientists perceive(d) a public

desinterest or even distrust toward "science"

• Rising need to justify public support for science and to drive economic vitality (knowledge economy)

• Reduced governmental support and rise of the industrial partnership model

• Science institutions and ethos are shaken: science scandals (false data, industrial influence, etc.), technoscience catastrophes (nuclear accidents, medical disasters, industrial and agricultural pollution, etc.)

• Social movements question the use of science, its interactions with politics, its practices and its methodology

• But what are the problems and opportunities associated with this turmoil?• Different opinions• My hypothesis : these differences stem from different

understandings of science and democracy

• I suggest 3 consistent ideal types that summarize frequent positions of scientists and “critics of science”• Autonomous science• Science for the public• Science with the public

Autonomous science

The “problem”Science may be subverted by external – political, economical – influences. In this context, truth-finding is made more difficult, even impossible.

Michel Polanyi. 1962. The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory, p. 56. Science as a free market:

Any attempt to organise the group of helpers [scientists who collaborate freely] under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre.

Autonomous science

Threats to science

• Politicization (including citizen influence)• Commodification (including all utilitarian demands)

Autonomous science

Knowledge and science conception

• There is ONE reality which can be discovered

• In order for this to happen, scientists must be protected from external influences, including their own values by their methods, by the academic independence, by the support of fundamental and disciplinary-oriented research.

• Any interference is detrimental

Autonomous science

Democracy in this perspective• Science unveils reality which allows democratic societies

to make better decisions.• Science = truth = human progress• Science is historically and philosophically linked to

representative democracy but remains external to democracy (in its own Republic…) (Brown, 2009). • Both depend on division of labor: the intellectual elite uncovers

reality (the scientists) and makes decisions accordingly (the politicians); the people choose their leaders.

• Both are technocratic.

Autonomous science

Citizens' entitlements• Benefit from the knowledge produced by scientists

Driving principles of the science-society relationship• Education, popularization, access to knowledge

Science for the public

The “problem”• The actual practices of science have sometimes strong

deleterious impacts (on people, animals, and the environment).• Science (and technologies) could and should be more

beneficial (less detrimental).

Environmental and ethical discourses often relate to this view.


Threats to science

• Technocracy regarding orientation and application• Lack of transparency• Partisanship (rather than politicization)• Commodification (for/with the industries)


Knowledge and science conception

• Whether or not there is a single reality, there are different ways of doing science and of using it with different effects.

• Science guidance is necessary, but usually limited to the applications or the choice of broad research directions or objects (GMOs, Nano, embryonic stem cells…).

• It is sometimes useful to incorporate lay knowledge into science knowledge production, and social values must be considered.


Democracy in this perspective• Extension of the representative democracy system to

science: the people choose the objectives (and restrict the means), the political and intellectual elites choose the means.

• The citizens also carry out important counter-democracy practices: surveillance, prevention, and judgement.

(Pierre Rosanvallon. 2006. La contre-démocratie. La politique à l’âge de la défiance. Éditions du Seuil, 345 p. English translation: Counter-democracy : politics in an age of distrust, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008, 348 p.)

Counter-democracy“By “counter-democracy” I mean not the opposite of democracy but rather a form of democracy that reinforces the usual electoral democracy as a kind of buttress, a democracy of indirect powers disseminated throughout society – in other words, a durable democracy of distrust, which complements the episodic democracy of the usual electoral-representative system. Thus counter-democracy is part of a larger system that also includes legal democratic institutions and extend their influence, to shore them up.” (Rosanvallon, 2010, 8).

“Rosanvallon argues that […] the vitality of democracy rests equally on forms of “counter-democracy” through which citizens dissent, protest, and exert pressure from without on the democratic state.” (Isaac, cited in Schmitter, 2010)


Citizens' entitlements• Choose the purposes of science, guide its evolution

according to its effects.• Watch, prevent and judge.

Driving principles of the science-society relationship• Surveillance, precautionary principle, accountability,

access to knowledge and data.

Science with the public

The “problem”The dominant model of science is unjust: science needs to be more inclusive.• Exclusionary (elitist authority) (Guston, 1993)• Intellectual colonialism (Fourez, 2002)• Standardizing -- even for the people (Stengers, 1997)• Rhetoric of social distance that leads to unaccountability (Brown,

2009)• Or even the construction of a denying community (Salomon,

2006)• There is a profound cognitive injustice regarding other ways of

making sense of the world (de Sousa Santos , 2007; Visvanathan , 2009)


Threats to science• Elitism• Technocracy• Lack of transparency• Instrumentalisation• Commodification• Intellectual colonialism• Overestimation of scientific knowledge, institution,

expertise (lack of humility)


Knowledge and science conception• Whether or not there is a single reality, humans only

have access to the constructs they make.• These constructs are imperfect, and historically and

socially embedded. Often they favor the established powers.• For these to be fair (just) – and according to some,

efficient – they must be constructed by all.• Or (and) must allow and value the existence of other

constructs from other contexts.


Democracy in this perspective• Favours citizens’ direct participation at all stages

(participatory democracy). The idea of dialogue is also very often at the heart of the advocated practices (deliberative democracy).


Citizens' entitlements• All may participate in knowledge production and uses, all

have their say on scientific practices.

Driving principles of the science-society relationship• Equality, empowerment, plurality

In a nutshellAutonomous science = science as an independent and idealistic quest• Science as an outside institution reserved to scientificly

educated people using the scientific method. Science serves democracy by unveiling reality.

Science for the public = science as a tool for better life• Scientific practices and its different uses could have deleterious

impacts on societies. Societies should be able to influence its orientations and prevent particular research projects.

Science with the public = science as a cultural project• Science must be open to citizens’ participation, demands,

critiques and ways of knowing, and value other knowledge systems (cosmologies).

What about Open Science?Aims to develop a theoretical concept and a praxis for the Science with the public view. A set of values, tools and practices of scientific inquiry including:1) Open Access to scientific publications and data;2) Participation of non-academics in the research process,

for example via infrastructures enabling civil society organizations to assert their own research priorities, and to coproduce knowledge (science shops, science hacking, collaborative research…);

3) An opening of science to a wider range of knowledges – practical or traditional, for instance. And a respect for the other ways of making sense of the world. (humility)

What about Open Science?1) Open Access: Also compatible with Autonomous

science (free flow of knowledge among the scientific community) and Science for the public (transparency, increased utility and benefits).

2) Participation of non-academics: Also compatible with Science for the public when it concerns science orientations, science uses and some limitations to the scientific inquiry.

3) Wider range of knowledge: partially compatible with Science for the public (use of lay knowledge as a complement to scientific knowledge).

What about Open Science?Work to do:- Inventory of practices (describing, analysing)- Reflexivity on our own practices- Construction of a coherent theoretical

framework- Promotion, invention and exercise of alternative

practices and understandings of science- Participatory action research, science shops,

collaborative research, research hacking- Open and public diffusion

What about Open Science?

Asociación de Ciencias y el bien común / Association for Science and Common Good

http://www.scienceetbiencommun.org/

Work together to describe and construct Open Science.

Mélissa [email protected]




ReferencesBrown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy. Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 354 p.

de Sousa Santos, Boaventura (ed.). 2007. Another knowledge is possible: beyond northern epistemologies. Verso, 447 p.

Fourez, Gérard. 2002. La construction des sciences. Les logiques des inventions scientifiques, 4e édition augmentée. De Boeck Université, 382 p.

Guston, David. 1993. « The essential tension in science and democracy ». Social epistemology, 7(1) : 3-23.

Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2006. La contre-démocratie. La politique à l’âge de la défiance. Éditions du Seuil, 345 p. / 2008. Counter-democracy : politics in an age of distrust. Cambridge University Press, New York, 348 p.

Salomon, Jean-Jacques. 2006. Les Scientifiques : Entre savoir et pouvoir. Paris : Albin Michel, 435 p.

Stengers, Isabelle. 1997. Sciences et pouvoirs. La démocratie face à la technoscience. Paris : Éditions la découverte, 120 p.

Visvanathan, Shiv. 2009. The Search for Cognitive Justice. http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/597/597_shiv_visvanathan.htm