mode I and mode II science
gibbons 1994
mode I;
- academic science
- pure science
- disciplinaritiy
- homogeneity
- traditional quality controls (peer review)
- autotonmy
mode 2:
- context of Application
- transdisciplinainiry
- heterogeneity
- reflexibity and accountability
- novel quality control
critiques of mode i and mode ii
- scientist have always been interdisciplinary
- is it accruate
- are authors advocates or prescriptors
post academic science
ziman; the universitiy-industry-government complex i
merton and functionliasm
science is a social instition that functions in society
- scientific autonomy by an ethos that legitimizes/describes scientific knowledge
matthew effect
reward system where people keep winning (disproportionate credit distribution)
becoming a scientist (merton)
learn facts and scientific method
professionalization
socialization (norms and behaviour)
communication systems of science
impersonal communication
peer review
citations
reward system science
gift giving; symbolic rather than financial (naming)
nobel; rewards individiuals
breakthrough; rewards teams
mertons norms
communism
universalism
disinteredness
organised sceptivism
counter norms
secrecy
individualism
interedness
dogmatism
martin rees 2010
science is self correction; scientists are their own critics
aim of norms
describe or prescribe science?
- provide normative and moral structures to scientific instition
durkheim on deviance
deviance is relative; strength of norms by reaction when broken
fraud and scientists stats
33.6% admit questionable reserach practices
climate gate
2009; leaked emails of UEA climate reserach unit right before Copenhagen CO2 emissions meeting;
scientist admit to ‘tricking temperature data’
- shows naked/truth of science
grundmann 2012
climate gate; no bad practie there
daniel sarawitz 2009 on climate gate
climategate releaant as exposes myth of pure science; its a human process
mitroff 1974
counter norms; nasa moon apollo scientists study
- storybook image of science
- committment and bias are good
mulkay and deviance 1973
norms are professioanl ideology used to justify science using ‘vocabulary of justification’
- morals are relative
- norms not descriptives but resources to justify actions
‘worlds in collission’ velikovskv 1950
- says biblical catastrophes caused by jupiter chunk crashing to earth
- scientist judge man and not science
discovery of pulsars 1967
cambridge group accused by comeptitors of being unfarily secretive/unopen;
- delayed publication and didnt publish enough data
- justified themseves usign norms as resources
ziman and post cademic sceicne
indistrual science has different norms than academic science
(PLACE: property, local, authority, command, expert)
norms are an ethos and not ethics
science is indivdiual and collective
norms best in democratic societies
rosalind franklin
- data was used by watson
- all acdemic sceicne deserves communication and acknowledge= was corrected in retrospect
ziman on norms and academic sceicne
- individiaulze internalize and refer to norms when circumstances apply; are functionalist and not structuralis
- science is self regulating; to succeed must follow norms
- science affected by external forces and always changing as multiple interpretations of objective truth
merton; where dont the norms apply
norms not applicable in commercial or military
norms are useful ideals and act as suggestions
application of norms; depends on other political/social/cultural institions where science occurs;
hence best in ‘free plural open societies’
woo suk hwang
2004; fraud in south korea; south korean stem cell reseracher + scientific malpractice in SEOUL NATIONAL univesrity
david cyranowski
2004; despite fraud, in SK fraud not illegal
- Hwang stayed in science but in different career (animal instead of human cloning)
- national
- norms both contradict all the time
kuhn
science governed by paradigms
- violating norms means violating the established truths at the time
structuralism
overaching instittions make up society
popper
science found in state of subjectivism
mitroff on a scientist
‘objective emotional distintered scientist only taen seciously by non scientists’
mead and mertraux
high school students in US depict scientsit as intelligent; open minded and moral
hence norms attributed by public to scientist
panofsky 20120
norms are mutually reinforcing norms and autonomy changes over time e.g. aryan scientists different contexts= different ethos assumptions of science has changed (not fixed structures and different in global/local settings)
behavioural genetics
eugenics, criminiality and mental illeness; a DEVIANT SCIENTIFIC FIELD; hence norms are disgreaged as past cultural constroversy and critique; less commitemnt to organized sceptivism
genetic diseases
interaction with public; sampling and donors needed; hence ownership and control is questionined in science