Comments on: Jasanoff on Science and Democracy

By: docpine

docpine — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:13:12 +0000

Well, if people do misuse it, I would quote back at them the latter part that you quoted:
“Rather than claiming the rarely attainable high ground of truth, scientific advice should own up to uncertainty and ignorance, exercise ethical as well as epistemic judgment, and ensure as far as possible that society’s needs drive advances in knowledge instead of science presuming to lead society.”

and ask the question “how’re we doing right now with that?”

By: David Bruggeman

David Bruggeman — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:58:58 +0000

In further reading of Merton’s “A Note on Science and Democracy” from 1942, there’s enough to wrestle with that I may well develop this further and post on it later in the week.

In short, Robert Merton published an essay in 1942 titled “A Note on Science and Democracy.” If you were to try and find it today, it would be slightly revised (primarily in the notes) and under its third title, “The Normative Structure of Science.” (I accessed it through his book The Sociology of Science, available online.) My problem with the initial title goes along with its context. The article/essay was initially published in a journal newly started by a French refugee and was part of a fight against fascism waged by intellectuals. Like Jasanoff, Merton is arguing about an ethos for science. Merton is also arguing (at least in 1942) that such an ethos is incompatible with fascism, though the inclusion of communism and universalism in his norms for science isn’t necessarily consonant with democracy (certainly not some flavors of democracy). This essay has also been criticized for not noting the mismatch between ethos and practice, much as Roger’s comments did with respect to Jasanoff’s article. While I think Merton’s critics go too far, Roger is on point.

To a certain extent, both Merton and Jasanoff have taken part in a longstanding conversation about how science and democracy are supposedly inextricably linked. While each can support the other, it is not so much the processes of each, but the normative and institutional supports that arise from each that matter. What those supports are, and that they is not guaranteed, and it’s the implication in each article that they are is troublesome.

Jasanoff knows better, and so did Merton, as a reading of his footnotes indicates. Jasanoff does write, toward the end of the essay, about the ways in which science can and should be more democratic, and the subtitle of the article, which qualifies the argument over shared values to the *conduct of sound* democracy and science, better reflects her scholarly background and her main point. But the front of the essay, feeding into this notion that some kind of golden age that never existed in science/democracy relations will be restored, is leaden and unexpected coming from her. I am concerned that it will be misread and misused in other debates and discussions.

By: David Bruggeman

David Bruggeman — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:29:28 +0000

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve not read the book. But it’s not hard to pick up the arguments from reading Chris’ other writings, either in his columns or blog posts. My main beef with the Republican War on Science is that it makes the implicit argument that the politically egregious uses or non-uses of scientific data were exclusively Republican. So I’m not in the best position to say read it or not. I think the paperback is on sale, so it won’t really lighten your wallet.

Should finish the Merton article this weekend and have some additional comments here. The online Jasanoff article has no comment capacity, but SEED editors have been known to read this site. That said, a letter to the editor might be worthwhile, as my concerns are as much with their choices as with Jasanoff’s arguments.

By: PaddikJ

PaddikJ — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:26:56 +0000

David Bruggeman:

“. . . Jasanoff has fallen for a lot of the problematic “Republican War on Science” rhetoric, which is disappointing.”

I somehow didn’t get around to reading Chris Mooney’s eponymously titled book, and now that the “moment has passed”, am wondering if it would still be worthwhile. Your thoughts?

I enjoyed your somewhat iconoclastic take on the putative shared values of Science and Democracy. Have your posted your response over at Seed? If not, I think you should.

By: David Bruggeman

David Bruggeman — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:12:02 +0000

I think the editors have squeezed this particular square essay into a round hole. When Jasanoff speaks of science and democracy she is not describing a scenario but proscribing it. She argues not that science and democracy share values, as the headline might suggest, but that the practices of both should share the same values. Reading the rest of the essay, I would even question her use of the word ‘democracy’. There’s very little discussion of people or the input of a populace, and what there is – a reference to a lack of public support for science in the last eight years – treats a government’s perspective as a proxy for public will. It also suggests that Jasanoff has fallen for a lot of the problematic “Republican War on Science” rhetoric, which is disappointing.

In an essay purportedly about science and democracy I find Jasanoff’s treatment of democracy odd, if not inaccurate. Substitute government for each use of democracy and I think the essay would be essentially the same. While I would like to see a democracy function with many of the same values that Jasanoff describes, she has not persuaded me that they are essential to that government being a democracy. They might be essential to a government functioning in the rational interest of its citizens, but that’s not the same as being a democracy.

Because of this creative democratic thinking, Jasanoff’s essay has reminded me about Robert Merton’s Note on Science and Democracy from 1942. I’ll need to re-read it to comment further, but I think both essays were a bit misplaced.

By: docpine

docpine — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:03:01 +0000

I am a fan of Jasanoff, nevertheless in her spirit of skeptical questioning, I would have to say that her quote “In restoring respect for science within government agencies, the new administration should recognize..” seems to accept at face value that somehow “agencies” lost their “respect” for science. As we have discussed in other places, how do we determine “respect”? Is it through large financial infusions? Is it through allowing scientists to determine policy? And if so, which scientists are in and which are out, since scientists seem to disagree on many things, including the correct policy? And which agencies? Did HUD lose its respect for science? Did the Foreign Agriculture Service at USDA or their Economic Research Service? Did DOD?

In my view, fuzzy generalizations are always questionable, even when issued by a giant of the STS field.

By: Jonathan Gilligan

Jonathan Gilligan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:36:04 +0000

Jasanoff’s thoughts hearken back to Bronowski’s “Science and Human Values,” in which B argues that what science has to offer to democracy and the political process is not primarily facts, but values. Science, Bronowski wrote, has created a society that has functioned productively and held together longer than any nation-state’s system of government. The values that allow science to function well are a combination of skepticism, trust, and commitment to both honesty and human dignity.

Bronowski addresses the balance between trust and skepticism in science thoughtfully, with nuance and sensitivity.

Jasanoff brings a fresh perspective to these ideas, informed by her wonderful scholarship in STS, and I would recommend returning to Bronowski and contrasting his 1955 thoughts to Jasanoff’s new ones. It’s amazing to me how well B. holds up more than half a century later.

By: PaddikJ

PaddikJ — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:33:21 +0000

Overall a very good essay – the theme of shared values between Democracy & Science seems especially timely.

But that first paragraph that Roger quoted: everything in it is everything that Climate Science is not.* A few other remarks also had an eerie (and no doubt unintended) resonance:

“We remain captive to expensive . . . projects, justified by appeals to fear, . . .”

“It would be a pity if the present administration lost sight of the need for powerful countervailing voices to question conventional . . . wisdom.”

“. . . skeptical, questioning virtues of an experimental turn of mind: the acceptance that truth is provisional, that questioning of experts should be encouraged, that steps forward may need corrective steps back, and that understanding history is the surest foundation for progress.” (emphasis mine)

And finally,

“The Second Enlightenment must be the enlightenment of modesty.”

Or conversely, The Second Enlightenment must be vigilance against hubris.

Regarding a few of Roger’s eyebrow-raising comments:

“Is it really the case that skepticism and the questioning of experts is to be celebrated?” Yes, absolutely.

“That truth is provisional?” Yes, provisionally.
_____________________________________

*A gross oversimplification, I admit, so I’ll add the caveat: It is everything that certain vocal, activist climate scientists are not.