View in EDS

Cooperation for What?: A View from the Sociological/Cultural Study of Science Policy.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cooperation for What?: A View from the Sociological/Cultural Study of Science Policy.
Authors: Jasanoff, Sheila1 SJ5@cornella.cit.cornell.edu
Source: Social Studies of Science (Sage Publications, Ltd.). May95, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p314-317. 4p.
Subject Terms: *Rhetoric, *Constructivism (Education), *Cultural studies, Science & society, Philosophy of science
People: Labinger, Jay
Abstract: In the article, the author comments on the article "Science As Culture: A View From the Petri Dish," by Jay A. Labinger, published in this issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." According to the author, the science management issues that the scientist Jay Labinger lists as "rather obvious" reproduce the old bifurcation in the policy literature between policy for science and science in policy. The constructivist strain in science studies has allowed to see distinctly that boundaries of "science" and "policy" are drawn by social actors to sustain a variety of social needs on a continually shifting map of privilege, politics and power. Quantitative risk assessment, is a culturally induced and cross-culturally differentiated response to the vulnerable bureaucrat's need for "objective" legitimation, the legalistic society's need for rules and clarity and the publicly supported scientific community's need for policy problems that are amenable to resolution by "science." Scientists who would be willing to set aside, or at least re-examine, some of their prior commitments in considering these kinds of issues would make wonderful conversation partners and many in the process produce more humane directions for scientific inquiry.
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:In the article, the author comments on the article "Science As Culture: A View From the Petri Dish," by Jay A. Labinger, published in this issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." According to the author, the science management issues that the scientist Jay Labinger lists as "rather obvious" reproduce the old bifurcation in the policy literature between policy for science and science in policy. The constructivist strain in science studies has allowed to see distinctly that boundaries of "science" and "policy" are drawn by social actors to sustain a variety of social needs on a continually shifting map of privilege, politics and power. Quantitative risk assessment, is a culturally induced and cross-culturally differentiated response to the vulnerable bureaucrat's need for "objective" legitimation, the legalistic society's need for rules and clarity and the publicly supported scientific community's need for policy problems that are amenable to resolution by "science." Scientists who would be willing to set aside, or at least re-examine, some of their prior commitments in considering these kinds of issues would make wonderful conversation partners and many in the process produce more humane directions for scientific inquiry.
ISSN:03063127
DOI:10.1177/030631295025002007