Long Live Mode 1 Science – Or Not

February 11th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

An editorial in this week’s science by Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS, indicates not only that science is changing, but that change may here to stay. Specifically, Leshner writes, “…the relationship between science and society is undergoing significant stress. Some members of the public are finding certain lines of scientific research and their outcomes disquieting, while others challenge the kind of science taught in schools. This disaffection and shift in attitudes predict a more difficult and intrusive relationship between science and society than we’ve enjoyed in the recent past.”

What might we expect of the relationship of science and society? First a bit of background:

Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons write that the role of science in society has changed dramatically over the past decade, a transition they characterize as moving from “Mode 1” science to “Mode 2 science,”

“The old paradigm of scientific discovery (‘Mode 1’) characterised by the hegemony of disciplinary science, with its strong sense of an internal hierarchy between the disciplines and driven by the autonomy of scientists and their host institutions, the universities, was being superseded – although not replaced- by a new paradigm of knowledge production (‘Mode 2’) which was socially distributed, application-oriented, trans-disciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities.


Those with most to gain from such a thesis espoused it most warmly – politicians and civil servants struggling to create better mechanisms to link science with innovation, researchers in professional disciplines such as management struggling to wriggle out from under the condescension of more established, and more ‘academic’, disciplines and researchers in newer universities, other non-university higher education institutions or outside the academic, and scientific, systems strictly defined. Those with most to lose were most sceptical – researchers in those established disciplines and institutions who feared that the quality of science would be eroded if these levelling ideas gained political currency and that their own autonomy would be curtailed if more explicit links were established between research and innovation.”

Nowotny et al. are among a growing group of scholars and practitioners who argue that the “linear model” of science – from federal funding to basic research to applied research to development to application to societal benefit – is neither descriptively accurate nor normatively desirable.

In a telling passage from his AAAS editorial, Leshner suggests that most scientists want none of this “mode 2” business, “… historically science and technology have changed society, society now is likely to want to change science and technology, or at least to help shape their course. For many scientists, any such overlay of values on the conduct of science is anathema to our core principles and our historic success.” Of course, to see the absurdity of this statement, one need only observe the annual pilgrimage of scientists and their representatives to Washington, DC lining up to lobby for more federal funding for science because of its importance to outcomes valued by the nation (e.g., see this statement by AAAS, “[The AAAS Board] is particularly pleased by the acknowledgment by congressional leaders of the key role played by science and technology in improving the nation’s economy and quality of life”).

But even while rejecting the notion of Mode 2 science, Leshner suggests that it is here to stay,

“Still, our recent experiences suggest that the values dimension is here to stay, certainly for a while, and that we need to learn to work within this new context. Protesting the imposition of value-related constraints on science has been the usual response, but it doesn’t work because it doesn’t resonate with the public. An alternative is to adopt a much more inclusive approach that engages other communities assertively in discussing the meaning and usefulness of our work. We should try to find common ground through open, rational discourse… Simply protesting the incursion of value considerations into the conduct and use of science confirms the old adage that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Let’s try some diplomacy and discussion and see how that goes for a change.”

If Leshner’s perspective is an accurate reflection of general views within the scientific community, then it looks like, while Mode 1 thinking is still strong, there is a window of opportunity for a greater engagement of Mode 2. Scholars of science and technology policy have an opportunity here.

3 Responses to “Long Live Mode 1 Science – Or Not”

    1
  1. kevin vranes Says:

    Opportunities indeed. There’s perhaps an interesting line of inquiry here about the differences in change between crisis-driven change and slow evolution. Can we say that WWII was the crisis that pushed us into a Mode 1 Vannevar Bush world (from some sort of Mode 0 of a completely different description)? If so, did we then slowly move into Mode 2? Or can we say that with the pressure of intense cold war–driven competition alleviated, the removal of a “crisis” precipitated a shift from 1 to 2? If that’s the case, what nature of crisis would be enough to push us from 2 back to 1, or from 2 into a new 3?

  2. 2
  3. Bob Frodeman Says:

    Leshner writes: “Protesting the imposition of value-related constraints on science has been the usual response, but it doesn’t work because it doesn’t resonate with the public.” Rather, it doesn’t work because the claim makes no sense. Values are not imposed on science, or anything else. Science begins in values, is shot through with values, and is used to serve values. (Which emphatically does not mean that science can be reduced to values.) Science is a procedure–a fine one at that–not an end in itself.

  4. 3
  5. David Bruggeman Says:

    Science and technology policy, certainly in the United States, has functioned in Mode 2 for the entire history of the Republic. It has usually been articulated from an application standpoint (we need to better understand this Louisiana we just bought, better navigational charts would cut down on shipping losses, etc.). The values aspect is the only part of this Leshner seems to address.

    Another interesting line of inquiry is why application-based Mode 2 concerns don’t raise the hackles of the scientific community to the extent that values-based Mode 2 concerns. I suspect that the former better allows for scientists to function in a Mode 1 fashion and to be left to their own devices.