Везде
Science on demand
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Science on demand
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000617-8-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Stephen Turner 
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 4
Pages
52-61
Abstract
Characterizing science as a public good, as Steve Fuller notes, is a part of an ideological construal of science, linked to a particular portrayal of science in the postwar era that was designed to provide a rationale for the funding of pure or basic science. The image of science depended on the idea of scientists as autonomous truth-seekers. But the funding system, and other hierarchies, effectively eliminated this autonomy, and bound scientists tightly to a competitive system in which the opportunity to pursue ideas in science depended on peer approval in advance. Funding agencies then turned to assessments of impact. John Ziman had already recognized the effects of these changes in the nature of science, and characterized it as “reliable knowledge” produced on demand from funders. As the competition for funds increased, there were further changes in the nature of science itself toward “reliable enough” knowledge. This made science into a “good,” but a good in the sense of results produced for funders, a transformation that left the original epistemic aims of science behind.
Keywords
science policy, liberal theory of science, John Ziman, Donald Stokes, impact assessment
Date of publication
01.12.2020
Number of purchasers
11
Views
364
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Bush, V. Science the Endless Frontier. A Report to the President. Washington, DC: United States Office of Scientific Research and Development, 1945. [https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm, accessed on 10.06.2020] 
2. Cartwright, N. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983, 232 pp. 
3. Dudley, J. “Defending Basic Research.” Nature Photonics, 1983, vol. 7, pp. 338-339. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2013.105 
4. Dupré, J. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993, 320 pp. 
5. Fox, M. F. and Nikivincze, I. “Being Highly Prolific in Academic Science: Characteristics of Individuals and Their Departments”, Higher Education. Online August 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00609-z 
6. Fricker, M. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 208 pp. 
7. Funk, J. “What’s Behind Technological Hype?”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2019, vol. XXXVI, no. 1, pp. 36-42. [https://issues.org/behind-technological-hype/, accessed on 09.06.2020] 
8. Hacking, I. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 304 pp. 
9. Kitcher, P. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 240 pp. 
10. Kitcher, P. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 272 pp. 
11. Machamer, P., Darden, L. and Craver, C. “Thinking about Mechanisms”, Philosophy of Science, 2000, vol. 67(1), pp. 1-25. 
12. Merton, R. “The Thomas Theorem and the Matthew Effect”, Social Forces, 1995, vol. 74(2), pp. 379-424. 
13. Morgan, M.S. and Morrison, M. (eds.). Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 420 pp. 
14. Origgi, G. Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters, trans. Stephen Holmes, Noga Arikha. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 296 pp. 
15. Sandström, U. and Van den Besselaar, P. “Making Academics Compete For Funding Does Not Lead To Better Science”, ScienceNordic, 2018, Thursday 27 September. [https://sciencenordic.com/academia-forskerzonen-researcher-zone/making-academics-compete-for-funding-does-not-lead-to-better-science/1458549, accessed on 06.06.2020] 
16. Smith, L.C.H. “What Is the Use of Physics?”, Current Science, 1993, vol. 64, pp. 142-145. 
17. Stokes, D. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997, 196 pp. 
18. Turner, S. and Chubin, D. “Another Appraisal of Ortega, the Coles, and Science Policy: The Ecclesiastes Hypothesis”, Social Science Information, 1976, vol. 15, pp. 657-662. 
19. Turner, S. and Chubin, D. “The Changing Temptations of Science”, Issues in Science and Technology, 2020 (Spring), pp. 40-46. 
20. Turner, S. “Knowledge Formations: An Analytic Framework”, in: Frodeman, R., Thompson, J. and Carlos Dos Santos Pacheco, R. (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 9-20. 
21. Ziman, J.M. Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, 208 pp. 
22. Ziman, J.M. “The Bernal Lecture: The Collectivization of Science”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 1983, vol. 219 (1214), pp. 1-19.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate