Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-19T00:07:35.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Life Sciences and the Public: Is Science Too Important to Be Left to the Scientists?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Malcolm L. Goggin
Malcolm L. Goggin*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Houston, Central Campus, Houston, Texas 77004
Get access

Extract

The scientific community is divided over the question of who should govern science. Most scientists are comfortable with a governing scheme which leaves science in the hands of scientists. Dissident scientists, with support from active members of the lay public, believe that science is too important to be left to scientists (Policy Research Incorporated, 1977; Miller, Prewitt, and Pearson, 1980).

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , August 1984 , pp. 28 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. The system of peer review at the National Institutes of Health was formalized in 1947, when the Division of Research Grants was established. In 1965, twelve working panels analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of NIH and made twelve recommendations (“Biomedical Science,” 1965). For a brief comparison with the peer review system at the National Science Foundation, see Grants Peer Review Study Team, 1976. For an evaluation, seeMitroff, and Chubin, , 1979.Google Scholar

2. For a response to Weinberg's argument, seeSchneider, , et al. (1978: 732), who contend that a science “by the people” is a science “for the people.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Lincoln Kirstein once wrote that, “Despite the populist politicians, certain crafts [e.g., science] must live by elitist criteria.” Quoted inSinger, , 1979: 4375. Singer goes on to point out that “when an egalitarian and humane society decides to support [science] … public officials have the delicate task of nurturing elitist criteria while protecting the general interest.”Google Scholar

4. Nobel laureateKornberg, Arthur (1973: 909) makes a strong case for public involvement in science, but it is questionable whether he would favor activities beyond support. “The support of science, so absolutely vital to our future, has been and must remain the responsibility of society. It is too important and too complex a problem to be left to scientists.”Google Scholar

5. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has acknowledged a constitutionally protected academic freedom. SeeChase, and Ducat, , 1978: 338. This issue is best illustrated by the Overton decision in Arkansas and the recent opinion of Justice Black with reference to the creation science controversy.Google Scholar

6. By equality, I mean equality of opportunity, where everyone has equal access to decision making. For a variety of reasons only a few choose to exercise this opportunity. This discussion of the theoretical and practical justification of popular control is based onPateman, (1970), Bachrach, (1967), andDahl, (1963).Google Scholar

7. Sayre, Wallace (1961: 861) defines American science policy as a “unified, comprehensive, coherent, rational statement of goals and methods for science.” It was “aspired to but not yet achieved” in 1964 and, in 1982, is still a goal.Google Scholar

8. Beckwith, John, one of the leaders of the drive to halt the XYY studies, disagreed with Hecht and with earlier reports about voting.Google Scholar

9. Merton, (1968: 16) describes Mitroff's account as a “story book version of scientific inquiry.”Google Scholar

10. In 1981, President Reagan had health systems agencies and professional standards review organizations on the fiscal chopping block. This indicated the general anti-consumer climate of his administration and its public philosophy of deregulation. The Reagan administration has also been equivocal about individual liberty. It has advocated freedom in theory but restricted free speech in practice. The most notable examples of the practice are the national security directive, the defense department order demanding the withdrawal of scientific papers that were to be presented at an international conference on lasers and optics, and the state department letters limiting the activity of scholars from the USSR and the People's Republic of China.Google Scholar

11. In 1966, both medicine and science were widely supported by the American public. Public confidence in both institutions hit a low in the early 1970s, then rose in the mid-1970s. However, according to the results of opinion polls conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, the percentage of people who felt science and technology did “more good than harm” dropped slightly between 1972 and 1976. SeePion, and Lipsey, (1981), Bereano, (1969), andGreep, (1975).Google Scholar