1、holars taking on questions of philosophical and religious importance, trying to understand the fundamental laws of nature and society with the aim of improving people and their world. Science was defended for its intrinsic value and reflection of human intellect and spirit of inquiry, one justificat
2、ion that is still used. Scientists were largely self-funded, independent of government support. Governments quickly came to see advantages in scientific advances and allied themselves with investigations that seemed influential and/or likely to result in tangible advantages of improvements in war ma
3、king, political control, or market domination. “From the eighteenth century, most scientists believed not only that knowledge would increase through the support of political power, but that political power itself is tied to contributions from science” (Salomon 1987). The Enlightenment fostered a clo
4、se relationship between science and government, with the belief that progress in science would ensure the progress of humanity. This relationship continues today. States have become nearly everywhere the main patrons of basic research - particularly where private benefits are low and public benefits
5、 are high. States, further, have exercised considerable control over detailed public allocations for science; defined topical research boundaries; steered private investment in science, to some extent or another; and regulated degrees of scientific interdependence with the outside world. States have
6、 relied on science and technology to secure their political, economic, and strategic viability (Solingen 1994). In Europe, the science-government alliance was established well before the twentieth century, but in the United States laissez-faire, extending the theme of the free market, was an article
7、 of faith. Even in the latter half of the twentieth century, science-government institutions in each location differed in three important ways: (1) U.S. bodies such as the Department of Energys Office of Science and Technology Policy are informational and advisory only, while European institutions r
8、esponsible for science policy have funds for launching research programs; (2) the members of advisory committees in Europe are much more likely to include social scientists than are committees in the United States, reflecting a broader view of what constitutes science in Europe; and (3) the U.S. age
9、nda focuses on national security problems and military research, while the European agenda focuses on civilian interests such as education, basic research, and industrial matters. Since World War II, science policy and the principal justifications for public sponsorship of science in the United Stat
10、es have reflected a utilitarian definition of science, as articulated by Vannevar Bush (1945) in his enormously influential report, Science, the Endless Frontier. The first justification has been that science is important to national defense: excellent science before and during the war directly led
11、to the weapon that won the war, and excellent science will keep the country in the forefront of military technology. The second justification has been that science plays a critical role in national economic growth and competitiveness: basic scientific research provides the fuel for U.S. industry to
12、continue to grow and dominate world markets through innovation. The original view of science as an intrinsically valuable activity and of scientists as independent intellectuals did not disappear. Vannevar Bush affirmed the need for scientific independence by Ch 2 Science Policy 06.10.02.doc 3 06.08
13、.02 writing, “Support of basic research in the public and private colleges, universities, and research institutes must leave the internal control of policy, personnel, and the method and scope of the research to the institutions themselves. This is of the utmost importance.” The formulation of scien
14、ce that has dominated U.S. policy since World War II has been increasingly challenged by changes in the nature of science, post-Cold War globalization, the patterns of funding for research and development, and the conceptualizations of science and society held by both academics and the public. The g
15、rowth rate of support for research and development (R the two are thought of as a continuum. Michael Porter (1991) believes that part of governments role in stimulating innovation is to invest in basic research as well as in educational systems and infrastructure, although he clearly states that suc
16、h investment must be consciously advanced and specialized. 3 Scientists themselves typically understand advances in understanding to be important only retrospectively, by validating published findings and working out the implications of a “discovery.” 4 Never mind that many inventors have only a haz
17、y idea of the science involved in their technologies. Ch 2 Science Policy 06.10.02.doc 6 06.08.02 Most researchers agree that a principal element in economic dominance (“competitiveness”) is a steady stream of innovation, but the connection between technological innovation and basic research is not
18、a simple one-way arrow.5 In many cases, first the technology works, then scientific research is undertaken to find out why - or why it fails over time. Carot, for instance, created a theory of thermodynamics while trying to improve the efficiency of Watts steam engine, and Joule formulated the law o
19、f the conservation of energy while investigating alternative sources of power generation at his fathers brewery. Technology, then, has been a source of empirical knowledge that provides a stimulus to scientific research, which in turn may make major breakthroughs that allow technology to advance or
20、be transformed (Rosenberg 1982). In this view, excellent science comprises the theories and knowledge that are the basis for useful and profitable technologies. Basic research on advanced materials, for example, has led to progress in computer technology, high performance engines, lightweight but st
21、rong automobiles, and plastics for thousands of uses. Science as Monster In opposition to the previous definitions, a view of science as the new Leviathan: “a body of knowledge which is esoteric, inhuman, and increasingly dominant” (Ravetz 19961971:24) has been a persistent counterpoint to these opt
22、imistic definitions of science and technology. “The mid-1960s had seen a vociferous critique of the social consequences of unfettered technological development, ranging from the environmental damage caused by the side effects of modern science-based production processes to the use of sophisticated e
23、lectronics in the war in Vietnam” (Dickson 19881984:30). There was a backlash against even the peacetime uses of science, which was equated to its destructive products: DDT, Agent Orange, nuclear weapons and radioactive materials, and other deleterious and deadly things spawned by scientists who are
24、 characterized as black magicians. This view is represented today by the Living Simply movement and by many environmentalists, who see many of the products of science as inhuman, destructive, and unnecessary. Current debates include those concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the use of
25、human stem cells, and cloning. A less absolutist variant of this definition characterizes science as neither good nor evil in itself, but needing to be under the control of moral persons and open to scrutiny by citizens or their accountable representatives. A recent edited book (Soden 1996) takes th
26、is view. Science, Soden says, is not necessarily good for us. Medical cures may seem wonderful, but treatments themselves can cause severe problems, including the prolongation of life. Products may be at the same time convenient and the cause of toxic wastes. Moreover, scientific inputs into policy
27、often clash with governments attempts to manage scientific activities, with the result that scientific endeavors are fragmented; resulting policy is also fragmented or unclear. In such a situation, policy fails to guide science with, perhaps, the “unforeseen and incalculable consequences of technica
28、l failure” (Soden 1996:2). In both these views, science must be environmentally and socially responsible as well as reflexive and self-limiting. To be excellent, science would have a moral dimension. 5 For an overview of approaches to quantifying the contribution of basic research to economic growth
29、, see Smith and Barfield (1996). Ch 2 Science Policy 06.10.02.doc 7 06.08.02 Science as Constructed Knowledge Another conceptualization of science revolves around the actual practice of science, from the craftwork of scientists in laboratories to the scientific communities in which scientists debate
30、 and form a consensus about what should be recognized as scientific knowledge and theory. Ravetz (19961971) explores this concept, which looks at how science is actually done. Two elements are necessary for scientific craftwork, says Ravetz: (1) a community of scholars with common standards and comm
31、itment and (2) individuals with high personal integrity. The process of developing truth in a scientific inquiry depends in the highest degree on specialized training and knowledge, with judgment a critical component. The objects of inquiry are intellectual constructs (not natural things), studied a
32、s problems for which the questions may change during the course of the investigation or even prove to be unanswerable. Furthermore, scientific methods are mostly informal and tacit, and the craft knowledge of the scientist must guide the selection and transformation of the research result through the publication process. The usefulness of published results for research by other scientists will determine whether or not they are judged sufficiently confirmed and significant to become part of the body of facts and theories in a discipline. Essays in Pickering (1992) pro
