Abstract
Distance is a prerequisite for the production of scientific, i.e. certified, trusted knowledge. The paper analyzes how the distance of science to politics and the media is eroded and instead a closer coupling is created by pressures to legitimate the scientific enterprise in a mass democracy. This loss of distance may have repercussions for the institution of science.
This article presents a condensed version of an argument that is developed in more detail in a book, Die Stunde der Warheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft, (Weilerswist: Velbrück, 2000). In particular, it draws on two chapters that have appeared as articles P. Weingart, “Science and the Media”, Research Policy, 27 (1998), pp. 869–879; P. Weingart, “Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability — Paradoxes of Science in Politics, Science and Public Policy, 26 (1999), pp. 151–162.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This article presents a condensed version of an argument that is developed in more detail in a book, Die Stunde der Warheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft, (Weilerswist: Velbrück, 2000). In particular, it draws on two chapters that have appeared as articles P. Weingart, “Science and the Media”, Research Policy, 27 (1998), pp. 869879; P. Weingart, “Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability — Paradoxes of Science in Politics, Science and Public Policy, 26 (1999), pp. 151–162.
R.E. Lane, “The Decline of Politics and Ideology in A Knowledgeable Society”, American Sociological Review, 31 (1966), pp. 649–662, p. 650; D. Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, (New York: Basic Books, 1973 ); N. Stehr, Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen, Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften, ( Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1994 ).
M. Gibbons, et al, The New Production of Knowledge,(London: Sage, 1994); S.O. Funtowicz, J.R. Ravetz, “The Emergence of Post-Normal Science”, in: Science, Politics, and Morality. Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making,R. von Schomberg, ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), pp. 85–123.
Stehr, Arbeit… (cit. n. 2), p. 36.
Gibbons et al, The New Production… pp. 5, 7, 8; Funtowicz/Ravetz, The Emergence… pp. 90, 109, 117, 121 (both cit. n. 3).
N. Luhmann, Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft ( Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1990 ), p. 273.
R.K. Merton, `Science and Democratic Social Structure in: R.K. Merton, Social Structure and Social Theory,(Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957, 1942) rev. ed., pp. 550–561.
R.K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England,(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970, 1938). The sequence of these steps was, of course, the other way around.
Everett Mendelsohn, “Robert K. Merton: The Celebration and Defense of Science”, Science in Context, 3 (1989), pp. 269–289.
The difference between her historical analysis and Merton’s is based on her epistemological reading of his `ethos’. That is not necessarily the only possible reading. Lorraine Daston, “The Moral Economy of Science”, Osiris,10 (1995), pp. 3–24, 7.
S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth. Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, ( Chicago und London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994 ).
T.M. Porter, “Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science”, Social Studies of Science, 22 (1992), pp. 633–652, p. 640; S. Fuchs, “A Sociological Theory of Objectivity”, Science Studies, 11 (1997), pp. 4–26.
R.K. Merton, “The Ambivalence of Scientists”, in: The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations,N. Storer, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1973), pp. 383–412; R.K. Merton, “Behavior Patterns of Scientists”, in: N. Storer, The Sociology of Science,pp. 325342.
R.K. Merton, “Science and Democratic Social Structure…” (cit. n. 7), pp. 550–561.
R.K. Merton, “Science and Democratic Social Structure…” (cit. n. 7), p. 545.
Yaron Ezrahi, The Descent of Icarus. Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Society, ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990 ), p. 53.
Ezrahi, Descent of Icarus (cit. n. 16), p. 56.
P. Weingart, “Das ‘Harrisburg-Syndrom’ oder die De-Professionalisierung der Experten”, in: Kernenergie: Gefahr oder Notwendigkeit,Helga Nowotny, ed. (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1979), pp. 917.; W. Krohn, P. Weingart, ’Tschernobyl — das grösste anzunehmende Experiment, in: Kursbuch,85 (1986), pp. 1–25.
A plethora of writings appeared featuring concepts like “scientific power elite”, “new priesthood”, “scientific estate”, “new mandarins” etc. that reflected this concern. Cf. D.K. Price, 1967, Scientists and National Policy Making,R. Gilpin, R. Wright, eds. (New York: Columbia University Press 1965); R.E. Lapp, The New Priesthood,(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1965); Knowledge and Power,S.A. Lakoff, ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1966).
Of course, this is not to say that the problem of accountability has disappeared altogether. There remains a fundamental tension between political power and its legitimation on the one hand and scientific knowledge on the other which becomes immediately apparent in goverments’ persistent interest to keep expert advice confidential because it is considered a threat to the autonomy of political decision-making. P. Roqueplo, “Scientific Expertise among Political Powers, Administrations and Public Opinion”, Science and Public Policy 22 (1995), pp. 175–182, 177.
Roqueplo, “Scientific Expertise among Political Powers, Administrations and Public Opinion” (cit. n. 20), p. 176; Ezrahi, Descent of Icarus (cit. n. 16).
Cf. the reconstruction of four funding programs in Germany (Environmental Research, Nuclear Fusion, Biotechnology, Electronic Data Processing) and the `War on Cancer’ in the US in: Geplante Forschung: vergleichende studien überden Einfluss politische Programme auf den Wissenschaftsentwicklung, W. Van den Daele, W. Krohn, P. Weingart, eds. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1979 ). For a detailed account of the emergence of the `Program for the Environment’ (Umweltprogramm) cf. G. Köppers, P. Lundgreen, P. Weingart, Umweltforschung — Gesteuerte Wissenschaft ( Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1978 ).
P. Weingart, “Verwissenschaftlichung der Gesellschaft — Politisierung der Wissenschaft”, Zeitschrift far Soziologie, 12 (1983), pp. 225–241.
M.J. Molina, F.S. Rowland, “Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluormethanes: Chlorine-atomcatalysed Destruction of Ozone”, Nature, 249 (1974), pp. 810–812.
P.M. Wiedemann, “Tabu, Sünde, Risiko: Veränderungen der gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung von Gefährdungen”, Risiko ist ein Konstrukt — Wahrnehmungen zur Risikowahrnehmung, Bayerische Rück, ed. (München: Knesebeck, 1993), pp. 43–67, p. 57;
P. Weingart, “Large Technical Systems, Real-Life Experiments, and the Legitimation Trap of Technology Assessment: The Contribution of Science and Technology to Constituting Risk Perception”, in: Social Responses to Large Technical Systems, Control or Anticipation, T.R. LaPorte, ed. ( Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991 ), p. 14.
R. Grundmann, Transnationale Umweltpolitik zum Schutz der Ozonschicht: USA and Deutschland im Vergleich (Frankfurt: Campus, 1999), Chapter 6; in this particular case, Grundmann argues, the political style in each of the countries, adversarial in the US, consensual in Germany, does not explain the outcome of the ozone debate because they practically inverted into their opposites during the 1980s (see p. 335).Roqueplo, Scientific Expertise… (cit. n. 20 ), p. 176.
The former was C.P. Snow’s worry based on his experience with the Tizard-Lindeman rivalry during the war years in the British government. Snow characterized Churchill’s relation to Lindeman as “court politics”. Cf. C.P. Snow, Science and Government, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1961 ), pp. 57, 63.
W. Krohn, J. Weyer, “Society as a Laboratory. The Social Risks of Experimental Research”, Science and Public Policy, 21 (1994), pp. 173–183.
The idea of a `Science Court’ put forth in the 1970s had a similar objective. Its fate should be a warning. Cf. “Task Force of Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology, The Science Court Experiment”, Science,193 (1976), pp. 653–656.
Boehmer-Christiansen lists “fusion, many `health’ issues, cancer, limits to growth, star wars” as examples aside from the “environmental domain”. “In each case, unsubstantiated promises or threats are made. Global warming is the threat through which Global Change research is funded”. S. Boehmer-Christiansen, “Reflections on Scientific Advice and EC Transboundary Pollution Policy”, Science and Public Policy,22 (1995), pp. 195–203. pp. 202, 203 fn 17.
P. Weingart, P. Pansegrau, “Reputation in science and prominence in the media: the Goldhagen Debate”, Public Understanding of Science, 8 (1999), pp. 1–16.
R. Hagendijk, J.Meeus, “Blind Faith: Fact, Fiction and Fraud in Public Controversy over Science”, Public Understanding of Science, 2 (1993), pp. 391–415.
S. Hilgartner, “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses”, Social Studies of Science, 20 (1990), pp. 519–539, p. 519; J. Green, “Media Sensationalisation and Science: The Case of the Criminal Chromosome”, T. Shinn, R. Whitley eds., Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, Yearbook Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook IX ( Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985 ), pp. 139–162.
R. Whitley, “Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers: Popularization as a Relation Between Scientific Fields and Their Publics”, Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook IX, T. Shinn, R. Whitley, eds. (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985), pp. 3–30, p. 4.
W. Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1954 [19221), 317; N. Luhmann, Die Realität der Massenmedien ( Opladen: Westeutscher Verlag, 1996 ).
J.F. Staab, Nachrichtenwert-Theorie: Formale Struktur and empirischer Gehalt, ( München: Alber, 1990 ).
Weingart, Pansegrau, “Reputation…” (cit. n. 32), pp. 9–10.
M. Bucchi, When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication, Thesis submitted to the European University Institute, Ms. ( Florence, 1997 ).
F. Close, Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991); J. Huizinga, Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), rev. ed.
B. Lewenstein, “From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga”, Social Studies of Science,25 (1995), pp. 403–436, pp. 415, 417.
Reactions were obtained by interviews of US and German scientists involved in fusion research. Cf. P. Weingart, “Science and the Media”, Research Policy, 27 (1998), pp. 869–879.
Newsweek cited an American researcher as saying: So many scientists had been lured into cold fusion that it “probably brought the rest of science to a halt for the last months” (Newsweek,May 8, 1989, 44).
An analysis of leading German print media in 1996 focusing on nine scientists showed three to fall in the category where media attention is followed post hoc by attention in the scientific community. Cf. Weingart, “Science and the Media” (cit. n. 42 ).
The debate was about the book by Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners and confronted the media with professional historians who questioned Goldhangen’s thesis about an inherent selectionist Anti-Semitism among Germans. Weingart, Pansegrau, “Reputation…” (cit. n. 32).
Cf. The special issue of Public Understanding of Science, 9 (2000) on `Global Climate Change and the Public’, in particular P. Weingart, A. Engels, P. Pansegrau, “Risks of Communication: Discourses on Climate Change in Science, Politics and the Mass Media”, pp. 261–283.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weingart, P. (2001). The Loss of Distance: Science in Transition. In: Allen, G.E., MacLeod, R.M. (eds) Science, History and Social Activism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 228. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2956-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2956-7_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5968-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2956-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive