Jasanoff on Science and Democracy
February 19th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Sheila Jasanoff, a leading scholar of science and society, has an interesting article in Seed magazine. She argues that science and democracy share the same underlying values:
. . . the very virtues that make democracy work are also those that make science work: a commitment to reason and transparency, an openness to critical scrutiny, a skepticism toward claims that too neatly support reigning values, a willingness to listen to countervailing opinions, a readiness to admit uncertainty and ignorance, and a respect for evidence gathered according to the sanctioned best practices of the moment.
At one level I see her point, that these are all virtues we should strive for both in our pursuit of knowledge and our political institutions. Yet, at the same time, in the actual practice of both science and politics the achievement of these virtues falls well short of these lofty ideals, even in the aftermath of the Bush Administration.
Here are a few interesting passages from her piece that raise some interesting questions about the current practical application of the “common virtues” underlying science and democracy:
The Second Enlightenment must be the enlightenment of modesty. All through the 20th century, grand attempts to remake nations and societies failed. Today, as this nation heeds its president’s call to “begin again the work of remaking America,” it would do well to reflect on those modest virtues that underlie the long-term successes of both science and democracy. These are not the programmatic ambitions of revolution or of wholesale system redesign, but rather the 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.
Is it really the case that skepticism and the questioning of experts is to be celebrated? That wholesale system design is to be greeted with caution? That truth is provisional? Jasanoff rightly says that such claims will be vigorously challenged.
She also writes:
In restoring respect for science within government agencies, the new administration should recognize that our understanding of the relations between knowledge and power have changed fundamentally over the past 50 years. A new branch of research — science and technology studies (STS) — has sprung up that takes the interplay of science, technology, and society as its object of investigation. STS scholarship suggests that science’s role in “speaking truth to power” is much more complicated than was once thought. The old formulation suggests both the accessibility of an unambiguous truth and a clean separation between knowledge and power that are radically at odds with the ways in which knowledge actually develops in disputed policy contexts. 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.
Again, lofty ideals, but far from being achieved in practice, even under the new Administration.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
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.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
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.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
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.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
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.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
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.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
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?”