The Deep-Ecology Movement: A Review; by George Sessions

Sorry for the delay in publishing this one.

Diana Crane - Testing the 'Invisible College' Hypothesis

The term 'invisible colleges' was developed in sociology by Diana Crane based on Derek J. de Solla Price's work on citation networks. She sees it as referring to an elite group of highly productive and mutually interacting scientists in a Research Area (RA) who are at the centre of the formal network of communication among all scientists working in that particular Research Area (RA). 

Diana Crane, in the paper 'Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: Testing the 'Invisible College' Hypothesis,' says that a group of scientists working on a particular RA form a social group that has not been paid much attention primarily because: they are geographically scattered, most scientists do not have more than one or two papers published in a particular RA, the boundaries of RAs themselves is hazy at times, and the participation in these groups is highly voluntary thus making it difficult to study the existence of 'invisible colleges' among members of the scientific community. Crane is, in this paper, trying to see if: 

• there exists any sort of social organisation among scientists working in the same Research Area by studying the social ties among scientists who have published in an RA with other scientists who haven't published in the same RA and, 
• scientists who have published in the RA can be differentiated by the degree of social participation within the RA. 

She studies a group of rural sociologists involved in 'agricultural innovations' - senior and junior - by using questionnaires and response sheets for information about their references. She tries to establish her understanding of 'invisible colleges' by studying the citation patterns similar to the study made by Price. 

Scientists are part of different networks of communicating with their peers and superiors including informal communication networks and formal networks such as collaboration with other authors, or thesis directors before, during or after one's research. Intellectual linkages often reflect the influences of one scientist on another. Using the information about references and citations received from the rural sociologists, she sets out to map their influences with the help of a matrix developed by James Coleman with the choices received by the author on one axis and the choices made by the author on the other. Continuous multiplication of this matrix will eventually yield all the indirect relationships between scientists in the RA. 

To analyse the direct and indirect relationships between members of different subgroups, Crane divides the group on the basis of productivity and commitment to the RA. With this division, she comes up with five subgroups, 3 based on productivity: 

• 8 High Producers - those who had published more than 10 papers in the RA.
• 11 Medium Producers - those who had published between 4 and 10 papers in the RA.
• 33 Aspirants - those who had published less than 4 papers in the RA.

and 2 based on their commitment to the RA - those who had not continued their research in the RA (it was found that all those had published more than 10 papers continued research in the RA.):

• 9 Defectors - they had between 4 and 10 papers published in the RA.
• 86 Transients - they had less than 4 papers published in the RA.

Studying both the choices made by scientists favouring other scientists who had published in their RA and with 'Outsiders', Crane found that the scientists chose both on an almost equal level (49:51 for 'insiders':'outsiders'). However, she found that the 'Outsiders' were less likely to be chosen more than twice (not more than 84% were chosen more than twice) and since only one 'outsider' had their name cited more than ten times, it was not possible for a group of outsiders to influence them as much as their own did. 

Characteristics of Members of Subgroups:

1. Selection of Group Members versus Outsiders: The 5 subgroups divided based on productivity and commitment were expected to exhibit varying degrees of linkages both with insiders and outsiders. While members of the highly productive group were closely linked with each other and with outsiders, members of another group which was relatively unproductive were not as closely linked with either group.   
2. Direct and Indirect ties by Subgroups: Choices made by the High Producers and Medium Producers led to them having greater ties with their own members than did the Aspirants. In addition, a high proportion of choices made by members of other subgroups led to the High Producers being placed at the middle of their communication network. The High Producers are also linked through published collaboration to a large number of members in the RA and also influenced many others in their roles as thesis directors. 

Changes in Networks of Social Ties

Over the last few decades, the number of High Producers has increased significantly and so has their proportion in the scientific community. High Producers associate themselves with other High Producers and most of their students become High Producers too. The High Producers place themselves at the centre of the communication network through their high productivity and commitment to developing and making the RA known in the scientific community. 

The type of social organisation one sees in among a group of scientists working in a particular RA can be likened to a social circle. The social circle is not well instituted compared to the bureaucracy or social institutions such as family. Members come together on the basis if their interests rather than their ascribed statuses. Indirect interaction and interaction mediated by common associates is an important part of the social circle and it is not necessary to know a person to be influenced by them. At most, a member of the social circle would know a few other members but never all. The presence of scientists whose high productivity is sufficient for them to attract the attention of those who enter the field, produce a social circle which then plays an important role in the growth of the RA.

The diffusion problem area deals with the diffusion of a sizable number of papers in a RA. A majority of these articles could be published either in a few 'core' journals with the rest scattered among numerous others, or be published in numerous different journals with no relation to each other. Neither scenario would be conducive to the growth of knowledge in that RA for, if there were only a few core researchers producing articles and papers regularly citing each other's work, that would only allow for a restricted view point with each being influenced by the other; it would lead to stagnation of ideas in the field; if scientists and researchers preferred to be isolated and avoided each other's contact, that too would be harmful for the growth of science for many ideas would never come to fruition. 

One of the things that needs to be further studied is the points of intersection between different areas especially if scientists are going to continue moving from one area to another to study related problems. The communication network then has to be traced and the influences form each area have to be analysed further to get a wholesome understanding of the communication among scientists. 

-----------

Diana Crane is a professor emerita of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. Diana Crane is a specialist in the sociology of culture, arts, media, and globalization. She has also taught at Yale University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Poitiers (France), Erasmus University (The Netherlands) and Columbia University in Paris. She received her Ph.D. from Columbia University. She has been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship, been a Member of the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, NJ), and a visitor at the Bellagio Study and Conference Center (Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio, Italy). She has held Fulbright Awards in France and the Netherlands. She was chair of the Sociology of Culture Section of the American Sociological Association in 1991-1992. She has been a member of the Advisory Board of Poetics since 1992.

TEDTalk: Michael Nielsen

Why it is important to open up Science: you can watch the talk here

Science, Religion and Ethics

This is the list of readings that Prof. Prema had suggested for the modules on Science and Ethics (and Religion).
Module 3 and 4: Science, Ethics and Religion:

1. Somerville, Margaret, ‘Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society’, Ethics of Science and Technology: Eplorations of the Frontiers of Science and Ethics (ed), UNESCO, Paris 2006, pp. 17-39
2. Bok, Siessela, ‘Secrecy and Openness in science: Ethical Considerations’, Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 38, (Winter, 1982), pp. 32-41
3. Cairns, John Jr., ‘Sustainability Ethics Matter’ Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics’, April 7, 2004, pp 3-6.
4. Rivers, Theodore John, ‘Technology and Religion: A Metaphysical Challenge’, Technology in Society, 28 (2006), pp 517-531
5. Prainsack, Brabara, ‘Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Israel’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 36 no.2, April 2006, pp.173-205
6. Sessions, George, ‘The Deep Ecology Movement: A Review’, Environmental Review, Vol.11 No.2, Summer, 1987, pp.105-125

I presented Margaret Somerville's paper in class. The discussion that we had this week illustrated the need to adopt a different approach to this module.But considering the fact that we haven't had any posts so far for the Science and Religion module-the paper still might be worth mentioning here.

As the title 'Searching for Ethics in a Secular Society' suggests, the author tries to list some of the reasons why we have to search for 'ethics' in a 'secular' society. She says that it can be seen as a 21st century revolution in conscience and consciousness. It can be explained by the nature of our postmodern, industrialized Western democracies. These societies are pluralistic, secular in the public sphere, and multicultural. These features also mean that they lack a 'shared story'-the collection of fundamental values, beliefs, attitudes, principles,myths and commitments that we need to buy into in order to function as a society. This story, or societal-cultural paradigm is the glue that holds us together.

Our shared story has focused on the two major life events of each human life-birth and death.In the past, religion played a vital role in helping man understand these two events. We also bonded together through a shared religion-both in the present and with the past and future generations Modern scholars such as Tom Harper and Joseph Campbell favour the derivation of the word religion from ligare ("bind, connect"), probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect", which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.

The possibilities that new scientific developments have opened up in relation to birth and death is a major focus of contemporary ethical discussions. Through the use of a combination of genetic and new reproductive technologies, the very basis of human life and its mode of transmission can be altered. Modern medical 'miracles' held out hope, if not of immortality as most religions do, at least of delayed mortality. Extraordinary new advances in medical science have shocked us into recognizing that we do not have consensus about the values that we need in order to address the immense ethical issues these new technologies raise.

Go here for article

We cannot assume that there is consensus on the values we will uphold, since we no longer automatically have access to a received set of values through a shared religion. We must therefore find and agree on these values and the author feels that an important context in which we seek to do this is in relation to how we should and should not use the new science.


Considering the discussion we had in class, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the following point that she makes in the paper: Due to this loss of consensus on values, there is an adoption of a situational ethics approach. By doing so, we seem to have lost the ability to agree that anything is inherently wrong-wrong no matter how much good could come from doing it. But in a society that has no absolute moral rules or no external source of authority for those moral rules that it does have, can we implement a view that human cloning is inherently wrong? Can we believe in a moral absolute, even if we are not religious and even if we do not believe in a supernatural being as the ultimate authority?

She proposes that we can do this by accepting two values as absolutes-

1. Always act to ensure profound respect for all life, in particular human life.
2. Protect and promote the human spirit-the metaphysical reality that we need to fully live fully human lives.

Let's examine current law regarding human cloning.

On December 14, 2001, the UN General Assembly began elaborating an international convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. A broad coalition of States, including Spain, Italy, the Philippines, the US, Costa Rice and the Holy See sought to extend the debate to ban all forms of human cloning, noting that, in their view, therapeutic human cloning violates human dignity. Costa Rica proposed the adoption of an international convention to ban all forms of Human Cloning. Unable to reach a consensus on a binding convention, in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was finally adopted.

I would like to end this (rather long) post with an incident mentioned in the paper. Margaret Somerville attended a conference in Squaw Valley, California and had given a presentation outlining the case against human cloning. She argued for recognizing the moral status of the human embryo. She was followed by molecular and evolutionary biologist Professor Lee Silver of Princeton University. He stood before the audience, melodramatically took out a tissue and blew his nose into it. Without saying anything, he held it up to the audience, who were watching him attentively. He then said, 'This tissue has cells on it from inside of my nose. I would like Margo to understand that I believe these cells have the same moral status as human embryos.'

These two different views on the moral status of human embryos and human embryo research translate into antagonistic attitudes about the ethics of human cloning. So far no definitive answer has been provided because it is difficult to arrive at a consensus. In our postmodern, industrialized society, advancements in science and technology have questioned the very tenets of organized religion and a sense of the sacred. We are now at an impasse because we no longer have a 'shared story'. However the question remains as always-'Is it right?'

---
(1) I do apologize for the unwieldiness of this post and also for providing numerous hyperlinks. But I feel that it adds to the content of this post and provides numerous additional sources of information.

(2) Such is the VASTNESS of this module that there are several other issues which can be taken for discussion. Maybe we can take them up if we get a good exchange going in the comments section.

(3) And most importantly, I do apologize for the inordinate delay in updating the blog.

Confronting Merton's Norm of Universalism

Kumar, Neelam (2001): ‘Gender and Stratification – An empirical study in the Indian setting’ in Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 8:51

Available at : http://ijg.sagepub.com/content/8/1/51

This paper is based on a research study, the attempt of which was to understand if gender played a role or was a variable used in the stratification system within Indian scientific institutions.

The author looks at the assignment of ranks to scientists/lecturers in scientific institutions and tries to determine if advancement in rank is guided by universalistic norms. (Merton’s norm of Universalism requires that when a scientist makes a contribution to scientific knowledge, the community's assessment of the validity of that claim should not be influenced by personal or social attributes of the scientist and should be subject to pre-established impersonal criteria. Universalism also requires that a scientist be fairly rewarded for contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.) For comparing academic rank, the major determinants of advancement in academia like achievements/recognitions (measured by awards won and membership in various professional bodies) and research productivity (measured by research publications, research grants received and reviews done for journals*) were taken into account.

The sample for the survey consisted of physical scientists of both sexes in four different Indian cities and eight scientific institutions. The study covered two work contexts: national laboratories and universities. The resulting sample included 117 scientists-56 women and 61 men-matched on the basis of age.

Results

The table below shows a comparison between men and women scientists in terms of academic rank held by them. It reveals the proportion of each sex in the sample in a given academic rank.

It is seen that as the rank gets higher, the number of women holding that rank declines. Only 3.6% of the women held the rank of professor, whereas 60.7% were assistant professors. In the case of male scientists, 18% were professors and 44.3% were assistant professors. In the rank of associate professor the difference is smaller. About 35.7% female scientists and 37.7% male scientists were in the rank of associate professor. Further comparison of men and women scientists (within each particular rank) in terms of age and number of years spent within the organisation revealed larger differences but these differences were evident only at the topmost level of the hierarchy. The mean age of women scientists at the professor (or equivalent) level was 54.5 years while for men it was 46.4 years. An analysis of the career trajectories of a few women scientists also revealed that many women stayed for an unusually longer time in the same rank than their male counterparts.

Gender differences on variables like research productivity and rewards/honours were analysed with t-test. The table below summarises the findings.

It is seen that the two groups differ significantly (at the level of .01 or .05) in terms of academic rank. But there was no evidence of significant gender differences in research performance. The result appears to contradict numerous studies showing that women are less productive. Findings not presented in this table revealed that there were no significant differences between men and women in terms of the time they reported committing to teaching and research (p > .05 in each case). The two groups also did not differ in terms of recognition measures (awards and membership in various professional bodies). However, it was also revealed that there was a significant difference in terms of reviews done by men and women scientists. The authors attribute this to bias and discriminatory practices in the selection of reviewers.

Conclusion

Ideally and in accordance with the norms of universalism, advancement in rank should be governed by research productivity. This study has clearly revealed a lower percentage of women in higher academic positions within Indian scientific institutions. Thus, it might be reasonable to assume that women’s performance levels were lower than that of men’s. The results of this study reveal that while there are significant differences in the academic ranks of women and men scientists, in research performance they do not differ in a statistically significant manner. The finding thus makes it clear that rank disparities between men and women scientists are not attributable to differences in research performance and leaves us with the hypothesis of sex discrimination, indicating the prevalence of particularism.

* As the various types of performance measures are of unequal scientific importance, a weight was assigned to each measure to reflect the importance of the measure in relation to other measures. A composite measure of performance was created by adding the scores for each measure. In the resulting order of importance, books rank first in published written output (and received a weight of 24), articles published in refereed international journals appear next (receiving a weight of 8) and so on. Similarly, single or co-authored articles and books were differentiated.

Knowledge-sharing in multidisciplinary projects

Cummings, Jonathan.N. and Kiesler, Sara. 2005. "Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries." Social Studies of Science 35/5: 703-722

This paper by Sara Kielser, professor at Carnegie Mellon, and Jonathan N. Cummings, professor at Duke University, discusses the problems associated with knowledge-sharing in large project involving multiple disciplines and universities. Their study was based on 62 scientific collaborations supported by the Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence programme of the US National Science Foundation in 1998 and 1999. The aim was to study the different kinds of techniques used to bridge distances and how effective they were.

Multidisciplinary projects are beneficial in that they bring in expertise from various field and from people trained in various environments. At the same time, physical distance, difference in working styles, use of different softwares, etc. could create barriers in such projects. The questionnaire of the study asked scientists what mode of communication they used and what the outcomes were. The outcomes were classified as new ideas/knowledge (patents, publications), tools for research (software, databases), training of scientists and engineers (PhD students, undergrads), and outreach and public understanding of science (school and community projects etc.)

The results showed that most of the projects used the traditional methods of faculty supervised tasks (84%), seminars (55%) etc. while the use of technology like conference calls (13%), online discussions (8%) etc. was minimal. The major discipline involved were computer science (16%) and electrical engineering (13%) while basic sciences like biology (8%) and maths (9%) had limited representation. The authors also investigated the relation between the number of Principal Investigator Universities and the coordination mechanisms used and found that to a statistically significant degree, more PI universities involved in a project predicted fewer coordination mechanism used in that project. The authors were led to conclude that distance and organizational boundaries still interfered with communication.

Having more PI universities was also found to be negatively associated with the generation of new ideas/knowledge, student training and project outreach. In this context, the authors call for new research into the theories of innovation and social networks; creation of new technology for ongoing conversation, reducing information overload, support simultaneous group decision-making etc.; and policy changes like longer-term funding to build collaborations, budget revisions to support such infrastructure, and better awareness regarding 'proposal pressure' amongst the researchers.

Science and the Judiciary

"Government regulation of major technologies has to take into account a conflicting array of scientific, social and economic considerations and of public and private interests."

The paper “Science, Technology and the Limits of Judicial Competence” was written by Sheila Jasanoff and Dorothy Nelkin and published in 1981 in Science.

It explores the complex relationship between the Judicial wing of the State and  litigation involving Science and technology expertise. The core argument set forth by the authors is that judicial competence in litigation relating to science and technology disputes is complicated by the uncertainties involved in determining the consequences and hence, it loses grip of conceptual and policy issues of the case at hand in its focus on the technical aspects.

As the role of science and technology in daily life is becoming increasingly common, so are the issues among scientific experts and among the social, moral and ethical characters in the public.

The environmental and health risks of technology make the requirement of “best scientific information” essential in regulatory science like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Judiciary is constantly in need of technical advice from scientific experts to make rational and legitimate decisions.

Reforms in the judiciary structure are proposed – where some say that judiciary should have a reductionist role to play, confining itself to the procedural verifications scientific evidence collection. Or even a close partnership between the judiciary and experts is suggested at every step of the litigation. Some even ask for a different body of judiciary well-trained in such expertise to deal with the issues of science and technology.

The large scientific and technological components of an issue are seen as placing an unusual burden on the adjudicating bodies.

Two major classes of litigations relation to science are categorized as:

(i) Ethical issues raised by scientific advances ( particularly biological sciences)

(ii) Technology which poses risks to the society and the perceived deficiencies in the government’s effort to mitigate these risks through regulatory action.

High level of uncertainty involved in the regulation of scientific and technological development compounds the difficulty. Disagreements exist about the magnitude of risk, appropriateness of measuring techniques and the reliability of data.

According to Jasanoff and Nelkin, the reforms to adjudication focus on the issue of technical uncertainty to the extent of exclusing the conceptual and policy issues at stake.

The following case studies exemplify this:

The Del zio case: A woman sued the Columbia University, Presbyterian hospital and the chairman of Columbia’s department of obstetrics for not allowing her to undergo a voluntary in vitro fertilization. The trial focused entirely on the technical aspects of the scientific procedure and weighed the credentials of the experts involved, rather than taking the basic value of the case into account: The woman’s personal desire to undergo in vitro fertilization and the Federal government’s regulations and conditions about the same given to the University.

The authors feel that the Judiciary is better equipped to weigh competing values and interests rather than settle disputes between scientific experts.

Superintendent of Belchertown State School vs. Saikewicz case which deals with the “right to die” of a an incompetent and terminally-ill 67 year old patient of Leukemia, acting through is guardian ad litem, which is weighed against the countervailing interest of the State to preserve human life at all costs, by the judiciary. Though in this case, the judiciary exercised its appropriate function of value judgement of competing interest groups. The authors argue that in most of the “right to die” cases the judiciary gets stuck around the technical definition of death or "brain death", rather than weighing the social and religious value associated with death.

A third case is that of litigations involving patentability of Living Organisms , which again gets derailed to the questions of technical differences between an invention and a living organism based on expert definitions rather than looking at the moral value attached to the commercialization of life-creation.

Taking their argument ahead, the authors point towards the environmental issues which strain the judiciary to a breaking point due to the unique policy context involving various interest groups: Scientific experts, Private Citizens, Special Interest Groups, and more. In such a complex relationship mesh, the trade-offs are difficult to determine and it further complicates decision-making as the boundaries between the agency and the patient blur. The dichotomous two party litigation system of the American judiciary is unable to accommodate such complexity. 

An example is that of the agitations against Nuclear Plants and the trespassing of the activists in the premises of the same to hold protests. The activists see trespassing as a lesser evil of the two and hence justify an over-dramatization of the greater evil of Nuclear Plants through their trespassing.

The Honicker vs. Hendrie case which argued for a closing down of all Nuclear plants immediately, also created new problems for the judiciary as it overstepped the distinction between policy-making and adjudication.

Also, the risks posed to the environment and human health are evidence-determined require frontier knowledge of the concerned discipline. The judiciary lacks the knowledge and science too has incomplete evidence to offer, hence further complicating matters.
An example is that of neighbourhood members of the airport in California who demanded a compensation for the harm that the noise pollution caused them. 

The proposed reforms have called for closer working of the Judiciary and Science when making value-judgements or for the establishment of a separate institution possessing such expertise to deal exclusively with science and technology related disputes. 

Yet, the authors argue that a closer working of the two institutions of science and law will fail to take into account the Fragile Values as long as they are focussed on the technical information enhancement of the litigation. Rather, Judiciary being the strongest institution of these fragile values must not allow a hegemony of the scientific expertise to overshadow the basic social, moral and ethical conceptualizations in such litigations as exemplified in the previous cases.

What do you think? Though this article is written in the context of the Federal Courts, it has an analogy in the Indian scene too. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is one the many cases in account, where compensation given to the victims is devoid of the social considerations. Another example is that of the Unilever Thermometer Factory in Kodaikanal causing serious consequences for the workers and local population. (One can also look at the case of Jadugoda uranium mines in Jharkhand and the damages caused to the local population's health).

Or, the current agitation among the Indian public against the propitiation of Nuclear power plants in Kundankulam and Jaitapur.

Please do comment and post relevant contemporary examples.
Thanks.

(Sorry for the unbearable length of the post, but since the paper will not be presented in class, I thought a detailed summary would be helpful)

Science and the State: 'Societal control and knowledge in democratic societies'

This summary of the above mentioned paper by Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, introduces the notions of knowledge policy and the politics of knowledge, distinct from research policy. While research policy takes the aims of innovations as largely unproblematic (insofar as they help improving national competitiveness), knowledge policy tries to govern (regulate, control, restrict, or even forbid) the production of knowledge.

Knowledge is a wealth creating power. Not only is it growing at an increasing pace, it is also being transformed in the process. If we talk about knowledge societies, we cannot remain silent about knowledge politics. Concerns about the societal consequences of an unfettered expansion of natural scientific knowledge are now raised much more urgently and are moving to the centre of disputes in society and to the top of the political agenda. Many issues need addressing. Most importantly, a completely new 'politics of knowledge' may emerge, with its own institutions and dynamics. Its basic feature is the use of knowledge to advance not only specific political goals and economic interests, but also certain norms, values and worldviews. The politics of knowledge denotes the contested nature of and the struggle over, scientific and technical advancements.

Science policy as conducted by governments, firms and foundations refers directly to the constitution of scientific knowledge, the individuals who produce such knowledge, the social context within which such knowledge is fabricated, etc. In contrast, stem cell research, for example, pertains to the emerging field of knowledge politics, in which ethical considerations as well as new relations and an informed dialogue between researchers, industrialists, political decision makers and citizens are sometimes included in calls for research proposals.

Self-Regulation of Science? How can we conceptualise the governance of science – the provision of public goods without the proliferation of public ‘bads’? Can we rely on scientists themselves? Consider the following two episodes concerning atomic energy:

· In testimony before the US special senate committee on atomic energy (1946), John von Neumann pleaded with the senators to enact strict government regulations: “it is for the first time that science has produced results which require an immediate intervention of government...” The senate acted upon this and the stringent regulations are still in effect.

· Compare this with the recent controversy about mandatory notification of potential use of biological research for terrorist warfare: “University officials and leading scientists are warning that new government regulations on biological research adopted in the wake of 9/11, and simultaneous efforts to inhibit publication, threaten to undermine the fundamental openness of science and campus life.”

Both episodes show that scientists can be advocates and enemies of a regulation of knowledge. In Merton’s influential description, science is an autonomous, self-regulating system, especially with regard to its normative nature.

This notion of a primary social self-control is a powerful, if mythical, self-description of science, and restricting scientists’ social and intellectual life in a way that is regarded as legitimate, because the spheres of production of scientific knowledge and the execution of political action were considered institutions completely sealed off from each other. Today, science is deeply entangled in politics, and political interests have a determining influence on the development of research. When ‘good’ science produces ‘bad' consequences, it is seen as deplorable. If this were to affect such paramount values as health and safety in an affluent society, political attention and intervention are sure to follow.

Governance of knowledge: Our aim here is to identify institutional frameworks to deal with new and potentially hazardous knowledge.

· We should avoid irreversibility

· We should guarantee and enhance public involvement and democratic decision-making. There is a basic tension in modern societies between democratic and oligarchic principles, since lay people are not knowledgeable enough to participate in decisions about SciTech in a competent manner. A solution to this could be in the education of the public and their inclusion in decision making through a minipopulus.However, the basic rift in such debates is not between lay people and experts, but between two alliances advocating different courses of action based on divergent basic values and knowledge claims. Claims from both sides are tested in public debate.

In short, to satisfy the two criteria, the institutional settings would require wide public participation and open, controversial debate, keeping open as many options as possible.

Globalisation and the nation state: no matter how ambitious and successful single national efforts may be, and no matter what stringent government regulations may be in effect, international competition can undermine such attempts. The most pressing problem is international coordination in order to avoid the Delaware Effect – lowest regulatory standards because of the nations’ preference for attracting business investments. The nation state appears to be helpless in the face of globalised production of knowledge and technical development – an observation that needs to be taken seriously, in the face of transboundary externalities.

Globalisation has led to several governance gaps, which, according to a report to the UN, were identified as:

· Operational: whenever policymakers and public institutions find themselves lacking the information, knowledge and tools they need to respond to complex policy issues.

· Participatory: the difficulties for a common understanding of, and therefore agreement on, critical policy issues.

Beyond classical forms of multilateralism, global public policy networks (actors from different sectors, NGOs, businesses) are promising institutional forms that could help bridge these gaps.

(http://aston.academia.edu/ReinerGrundmann/Papers/280481/Social_Control_and_Knowledge_In_Democratic_Societies)

Do comment.

The Concept of Disinterestedness

Hello. My presentation was on Warren Schmaus's article- Fraud and the Norms of Science. It was published in Science, Technology, & Human Values in 1983. Here's the link to the article- http://www.jstor.org/stable/689245

I found this article interesting because it doesn't conform to what Robert Merton says about every scientist having to engage in scientific research solely in a completely disinterested fashion. It is perfectly okay for scientists to perform research in the hopes of gaining some personal benefit, as long as they do not mess or interfere with the aims of science. This is where the whole question of fraud and negligence comes in. In their haste to attain acclaim in the scientific world, scientists often resort to publishing fabricated or incomplete data, and Merton finds this unpardonable. However, Schmaus adds to this by saying that intentional fraud is bad, but so is unintentional or constructive fraud which arises out of negligence or shoddy work. Schmaus believes that negligence too is reason enough for a scientist to face debarment. Fraud is fraud whether intended or not. Schmaus believes that if the other three norms of science are conformed to, fraud should never be a problem. Organized skepticism and peer review, as Dipali posted about, is supposed to ensure that fraudulent practices in science don't arise. Disinterestedness and organized skepticism should be methodological prescriptions instead of norms. Schamus says that it may be unjust or unfair to require that scientists be disinterested unlike the rest of us. "The pursuit of scientific knowledge is not an important moral value that

conflicts with and overrides a scientist's right to pursue his or her own career. Scientists who commit fraud thus violate not a moral rule that applies only to them and enjoins them from self-interested activity, but a moral rule that applies to everybody and requires scientists to do their duty."

On Peer Review, Fraud and Plagiarism

The article I presented is titled "What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of:“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?” by Chris R. Triggle and David J. Triggle. It was published in February, 2007 in the journal, Vascular Health and Risk Management. Here is a link for the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994041/

This article deals with Merton's norm of Organised Skepticism according to which all scientific claims must be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted. This happens through the peer review process but as the paper suggests, there are inherent problems with the very process.

Here are some of the important arguments/questions in the paper:

Peer Review

• How do you define 'peer?'
• Anonymity in the review process assumes maximal effort and fair judgement. At the same time, it protects reviewers from retribution. But does it lead to laziness?
• Use of vague reasons such as 'my gut feeling is this will not work'
• Why not publish the reviews then?
• "In what direction and should the peer review process actually police scientific fraud and should the peer review itself be subjected to review and potential legal action if scientific fraud by the reviewer is suspected?"
• Tendency to accept only positive data
• Bias - free passage for well-known laboratories, country of origin also influences acceptance
• "If the peer review process is unfair, if the rights of the individual under review are not protected, if the “facts” presented during the review are inaccurate, and the result is a damaged reputation and loss of income then why shouldn’t you sue?"
• Conflict of interest can arise from differences between author, journals and funding sources, vested interests, ideologies, religions etc.

Journal Impact Factor (JIF)

• Means of defining the impact of a scientist's research
• The number of citations for an article in a given year divided by the number of articles and reviews published in the same journal during the past two years
• “80:20” phenomenon - 20% of publications account for 80% of the citations
• But it is essential to evaluate the impact of the individual paper and take into account not only where it was published but, in particular, also how well it has been cited and by whom —a paper in a high impact journal does not necessarily equate with a high impact paper, it is the citation frequency that is more important
• Alternative method - Index of individual productivity, “h”, has been proposed by Hirsch (2005) where h is defined as the number of papers with citation number >h

Fraud

• Difficulty - to determine with complete certainty that malicious intent and not interpretation error, or simply bad laboratory practice, was the cause.
• "Fraud in science, whether initially intended as hoaxes or planned with career and profit-making intentions, not only ruins the careers of the perpetrator, but also, potentially, their innocent colleagues, as well as tarnishing the reputation of the institution where the work was performed and reducing the confidence of the public in the value of scientific research"

Plagiarism

• Self-plagiarism
• Cryptomnesia - unconscious plagiarism?
• Is reuse of descriptions of experimental methods (like A + B = C) plagiarism?
• "Scientists are no different from any other groups in society and, like many other analogous comparisons, a few rotten apples will always be found."

Recommendations

• The establishment of the equivalent of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in other countries
• Appropriate safeguards designed to protect both the whistleblower and the accused
• Processes whereby the apparent bias in peer review can be reduced are urgently required and should be evaluated
• Heightened awareness and education at all levels concerning the seriousness of scientific fraud in all of its manifestations

Feel free to comment.

- Dipali.

Understanding Merton's Universalism (Gender)

Merton's passion and interest towards the study of the Sociology of Science, especially through the interactions of social and cultural structures with Science. In this regard, he formulated the Norms of Science, namely: Universalism, Communism, Organized Scepticism and Disinterestedness.
This post deals with the norm of Universalism ('claims to truth' ought to be evaluated fairly and not determined by characteristics such as race, nationality, gender, religion, etc.) especially in the context of Gender.

Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams of Cornell University, in a paper titled 'Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science' try to explore the prevalence and causes for gender bias in the academia. The primary causes for under-representation, reports suggested were discriminations in the fields of granting funds, hiring and the journal reviews.

With respect to Journal Reviewing, the authors examine manuscript acceptance rates between males and females while keeping the quality of work as a constant. Analysing works ranging from Budden's study of blind reviews faring better gender-wise in Behavioural Psychology to longitudinal studies spanning two and a half decades, the authors dismiss the argument of gender bias in Journal Reviwing, primarily citing weak justifications and proof of discrimination with respcet to manuscript acceptance rates.In the case of Grant Funding, Ceci and Williams (2010) primarily compare the works of Wennerås and Wold with the Cochrane Methodology Review Group that concluded that apart from the former's study conducted a decade ago, none of the other studies indicate a strong case of discrimination.Hiring, witnessed rather interesting results- one study that looked at positions in R1 universities concluded that women has a better chance of getting interviewed and receiving offers than their male counterparts.

In conclusion, Ceci and Williams are rather sceptical about these conventional claims of discrimination against women. So how do they answer the puzzle of under-representation? The authors attribute it to fertility (life style choices), career preferences (teching over research, for example) and 'work-home' balance issues. While they acknowledge gender differences, they define the differences as 'secondary' and conclude that the real problem lies in the resources attributable to the abovementioned choices and it is those that have to be the focus of the remedy.

Thus, placing it in the context of Merton's Universalism, we see that Ceci and Williams bear a tinge of optimism and infact indicate a move towards Universalism. However, some points to note about the article are that the argument is centered around American contexts and hence cannot be extrapolated to other contexts; the authors primarily look at data for explicit indicators of discrimination, which is rarely the case.

Reference- Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. PNAS vol. 108 no. 8 3157-3162 (2010)

-Uttara

The Hello World Post

Welcome.

Read, post, comment.

(Please ensure that your post is around 500-800 words at the most and add hyperlinks and labels to relevant references.)

The next few set of posts will be on Robert Merton's Norms of Science. Do have a look at this as well.