Abstract
The capitalist mode of production requires continuous innovation in all spheres of life, the creation of new commodities, new technologies, new ideas and new social forms. It is the business of natural science to aid in this process of innovation. Thus under capitalism natural science acts as a direct productive force, continuously invading and transforming all areas of human existence. Marx himself saw that nineteenth-century science acted both as a direct force of capitalist production and also as a means for social control — for the maintenance of the capitalist order. Yet these roles were only partially visible and immanent in nineteenth-century science. It is the thesis of this chapter that, from the mid-twentieth century on, the twin roles of science as a force of production and of social control have become both dominant and manifest, and that this transition is linked with a change in the mode of the production of scientific knowledge, from essentially craft to industrialised production. This change in the mode of production of science has developed over a long period, with some branches of science, such as chemistry, becoming industrialised in the nineteenth-century, and some still to fully undergo the transformation, but from 1945 onwards industrialised science has been the dominant mode.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
J. Needham, ‘Science and Society in East and West’, in The Science of Science, ed. M. Goldsmith and A. Mackay ( London: Souvenir Press, 1964 ).
J. D. Bernal, The Social Functions of Science ( London: Routledge, 1939 ).
J. D. Bernal, Marx and Science ( London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1952 ) p. 49.
H. Rose and S. Rose, Science and Society ( London: Allen Lane, 1969 ).
D. K. Price, Government and Science (New York University Press, 1954 ).
R. Gilpin, Atomic Scientists and Nuclear Weapons Policy (Princeton University Press, 1962 ).
R. Barber, The Politics of Research ( Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1966 ).
D. Schooler, Science, Scientists and Public Policy ( New York: Free Press, 1971 ).
R. E. Lapp, The New Priesthood ( New York: Harper & Row, 1968 ).
E. B. Skolnikoff, Science, Technology and American Foreign Policy (MIT Press, 1967).
D. Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science ( Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969 ).
J. J. Salomon, Politics and Science ( London: Macmillan, 1973 ).
C. F. Carter and B. R. Williams, Industry and Technical Progress (Oxford University Press, 1957 ).
Science Policy Research Unit, Annual Report (Sussex University Press, 1974).
A. Weinberg, ‘Criteria for Scientific Choice’, Minerva, 1, 2 (1963).
J. M. Levy-Leblond and A. Jaubert, Critique et Autocritique de la Science (Paris: de Seuil, 1973 ).
M. Polanyi, The Logic of Liberty ( London: Routledge, 1945 ).
Haldane Report, Machinery of Government, Cmd. 9230 ( London: HMSO, 1918 ).
R. Williams, ‘Some Political Aspects of the Rothschild Affair’, Science Studies, 3 (1973) pp. 31–46.
E. Teller, ‘Can a Progressive be a Conservationist?’, New Scientist 45 (1970) pp. 346–8.
M. Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason ( New York: Columbia University Press 1947 ).
M. Horkheimer and T. W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment ( London: Allen Lane, 1973 ).
J. Habermas, Towards a Rational Society ( London: Heinemann, 1971 ).
H. Marcuse, One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society ( London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964 ).
W. Leiss, The Domination of Nature ( New York: Brazillier, 1972 ).
D. Joraysky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science ( London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961 ).
L. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union ( New York: Knopf, 1972 ).
R. Suttmeier, ‘Party Views of Science: the Record from the First Decade’, China Quarterly (Oct-Dec 1970 ).
J. S. Horn, Away With All Pests ( London: Paul Hamlyn, 1969 ).
J. Needham, J. Robinson and I. Raper, Hand and Brain in China ( London: Anglo -Chinese Education Institute, 1971 ).
Science for the People, China Science Walks on Two Legs, ( New York: Avon, 1974 ).
Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works ( Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1967 ) p. 375.
M. Millionschikov, in The Scientific and Technological Revolution: Social Effects and Prospects (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972) pp. 13–28.
P. Kapitsa, ‘Basic Factors in the Organisation of Science and How They are Handled in the U.S.S.R.’, Daedalus 102 (2) (1973) pp. 167–76.
J. Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems (Oxford University Press, 1971 ).
J. Ziman, Public Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 1968 ).
E. Shils, ‘Faith, Utility and the Legitimacy of Science’, Daedalus 103 (3) (1974) pp. 1–16.
J. Monod, Chance and Necessity ( London: Cape, 1972 ).
J. Ellul, The Technological Society ( London: Cape, 1965 ).
T. Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends: Politics and Transcendance in Western Society ( London: Faber, 1973 ).
Editor information
Copyright information
© 1976 Hilary Rose and Steven Rose
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rose, H., Rose, S. (1976). The Incorporation of Science. In: Rose, H., Rose, S. (eds) The Political Economy of Science. Critical Social Studies. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15725-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15725-9_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-21138-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-15725-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)