Advertisement

The Social Control of Science

  • Arthur G. Steinberg

Abstract

The expression, “Social Control of Science” means different things to different people. My interpretation is that any form of control of either goal directed (i. g. applied) or non-goal directed (i. e. basic) science exerted by individuals or groups other than the scientists responsible for the initiation and prosecution of the experiments is social control of science. Governmental, religious, cultural (i. e. Zeitgeist), sociological and financial controls are, under this definition, forms of social control of science. Reflection will show that “control” need not be disadvantageous, it may be benign, or beneficial, and even necessary.

Keywords

Social Control Biomedical Science Fiscal Year False Data Peer Review System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nashim, I. and Yebamoth, I., “The Talmud” pp. 440, Soncino Press (1936).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Medvedev, Z.A., “The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko,” pp. 284, Columbia University Press, New York (1969), and “The Situation in Biological Sciences,” Proc. Lenin Acad. Agricultural Sci. U.S.S.R., July 21-August 7, 1948, pp. 636, International Publishers, New York (1949).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “N.I.H. Almanac,” DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 74–5 (1974).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernal, J.D., “The Social Function of Science,” p. 206, 482, The Macmillan Company, New York (1939).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lapped M., Accountability in science, Science 187:(February 28, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wade, N., Genetics: Conference sets strict controls to replace moratorium, Science 187: 931 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Culliton, B., Fetal research (III): The impact of a Massachusetts law, Science 187: 1175 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health,” W.T. Carrigan, (ed. ) (1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shannon, J.A., Federal and academic relationships: The biomedical sciences, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 71: 3309 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seaborg, G., Science, technology and the citizen, in “The Place of Value in a World of Facts”, A. Tiselius and S. Nilsson (eds.) Proc. 14th Nobel Symp., Wiley-Interscience, New York (1969).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ludmerer, K.M., “Genetics and American Society,” p. 222, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland (1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Boyer, H.W. et al, Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 71: 2593 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    New York Times, “World Biologists Tighten Rules on ‘Genetic Engineering’ Work,” (February 27, 1975 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brewster, K., Coercive power of the federal purse, Science 188: 105 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur G. Steinberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Medical Advisory BoardNational Genetics FoundationNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations