The Social Integration of Science

Gesellschaft Technik Umwelt Neue Folge

12

Gotthard Bechmann Vitaly Gorokhov Nico Stehr (eds.)

The Social Integration of Science

Institutional and Epistemological Aspects of the Transformation of Knowledge in Modern Society

This book is also available in print (paperback) at edition sigma and through your bookstore. ISBN 978-3-89404-942-3 www.edition-sigma.de

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: bibliographical data Detailed bibliographical data from the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie can be obtained at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Bibliografische Informationen Der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
eBook (PDF): ISBN 978-3-8360-0942-3

Copyright 2009 by edition sigma, Berlin.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems without prior written permission from the publisher.

Typesetting: Sylke Wintzer, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe.

Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................
Gotthard Bechmann, Vitaly Gorokhov, Nico Stehr 1 Knowledge and information society ............................................................................. 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Changing knowledge production in science .................................................................. Knowledge politics ........................................................................................................ Decision-oriented science ............................................................................................. Knowledge and information .......................................................................................... Communication and knowledge .................................................................................... Knowledge is self-multiplying ...................................................................................... Knowledge as a capacity to act ..................................................................................... The sociology of knowledge and science ...................................................................... About this volume ......................................................................................................... 11 13 14 16 19 20 21 23 24

Science Production in the Knowledge Society

Scientific Knowledge and Values of Technogenic Civilisation ........................... 35

Vyacheslav Stepin 1 Science as a civilisation phenomenon ........................................................................... 35 2 Principles of science and their structure ........................................................................ 40 3 From classical to post-non-classical science ................................................................. 47

Institutional Interfaces of the Science System and the Economic System ......... 67
Thomas Heinze Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 67 1 2 3 4 5 The concept of structural coupling ............................................................................ Indicators for science-based technologies ..................................................................... Organisations and functional systems ........................................................................... Interorganisational networks ......................................................................................... Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 69 70 73 76 79

Path Dependency and Path Creation Some Theoretical Reflections ............... 85

Gerd Schienstock Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 85

6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contents Technical regimes and path dependency ....................................................................... Evolving new paths and path creation ........................................................................... Path change out of path dependency ............................................................................. The communities of practice concept and the niche concept ........................................ New technological paradigms and path creation ........................................................... Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 86 88 89 90 92 95

Climate Research between Knowledge and Organisation Problems of Transdisciplinary Science ................................................................. 101
Gotthard Bechmann Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 The changing organisation of research .......................................................................... The political function of research .................................................................................. Problem- and programme-oriented research ................................................................. Scientific advice and political decision ......................................................................... Climate research as an example of transdisciplinary science ........................................ Summary ....................................................................................................................... 103 106 109 112 114 117

II The Governance of Science

The Social and Political Surveillance of Knowledge in Modern Societies ......... 123
Nico Stehr 1 2 3 4 5 Science policy and knowledge politics ......................................................................... Knowledge politics explained ....................................................................................... On the origins of modern knowledge politics ............................................................... The governance of knowledge ...................................................................................... Concluding observations ............................................................................................... 127 130 132 138 141

Vision Assessment Supporting the Governance of Knowledge the Case of Futuristic Nanotechnology ................................................................. 147
Armin Grunwald Introduction and overview .................................................................................................. 1 Futuristic visions in nanoscience and nanotechnology ................................................. 1.1 Visions accompanying the career of nanotechnology .......................................... 1.2 Visions, Leitbilder, and science fiction ................................................................ 147 149 149 151

1.3 Characteristics of futuristic visions ...................................................................... 153 2 The case of human enhancement and the need for orientation ..................................... 154

Contents 2.1 Converging technologies for improving human performance ............................. 2.2 Occasions of choice and need for orientation ...................................................... 3 The orientation dilemma related to using future knowledge ......................................... 3.1 Functions of visionary future communication ..................................................... 3.2 The ambivalence of futuristic visions .................................................................. 3.3 The orientation dilemma ...................................................................................... 4 Vision assessment and the governance of knowledge .................................................. 4.1 The need for vision assessment ............................................................................ 4.2 Vision assessment an outline ............................................................................. 5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................

7 154 156 157 158 159 162 162 164 165 168

In the Absence of Knowledge Politics Neuropsychiatry and the Drug Industry .......................................................................................................... 171
Thomas Brante 1 Science as classification and explanation ...................................................................... 172 2 Classification of mental disorders: the DSM ................................................................ 173 3 Explanation of mental disorders: neuropsychiatry ........................................................ 180 4 Conclusion: the troublesome tension between classification and explanation ............. 186

Regulatory Borders Knowledge Politics and Reproductive Science ............... 201

Jacquelyne Luce 1 2 3 4 5 6 Regulatory borders ........................................................................................................ Assisted conception and governance ............................................................................. Images of donor insemination ....................................................................................... Regulating access donor semen and/or insemination services ................................... 1980-1999: Cross-border reproductive relations ........................................................... Regulatory effects ......................................................................................................... 201 202 205 206 208 216

7 Policy implications ........................................................................................................ 219 8 Reflections: Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 .................................................. 222

III Organisation of Problem-oriented Research: Case Studies

Sustainable Development Methodological Aspects ........................................... 229
Victor Danilov-Danilyan 1 The content of the concept of sustainable development sustainability and survival ................................................................................................................... 229 2 Aspects of sustainable development ............................................................................. 231

8 3 4 5 6 7

Contents Sustainability of the biota and sustainability of civilisation ......................................... Sustainability mechanisms in civilisation ..................................................................... Optimality or sustainability? ......................................................................................... Towards a definition of sustainable development ......................................................... The environmental aspect of stability ........................................................................... 7.1 Socio-medical aspect of stability .......................................................................... 7.2 The humanitarian aspect of stability .................................................................... 7.3 Interrelationship of the three aspects of stability .................................................. 7.4 Anticipating the consequences of the use of technology is more important than the technology itself ..................................................................... 234 236 237 239 240 242 244 245 247

7.5 The ordinary consciousness and the problem of sustainability ............................ 248 7.6 The role of science, education and moral training in the transition to sustainable development .................................................................................. 251

The Natural and the Artificial from Galileo to Nanotechnology ....................... 255
Vitaly Gorokhov 1 Galileos new science and technological development ................................................. 256 2 From a geometric scheme to physical processes and from the latter to a design diagram .............................................................................................................. 263 3 The natural and the artificial ......................................................................................... 268 4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 281

Problem-oriented Research and the Disciplinary Dynamics of Science the Case of Atmospheric Chemistry ...................................................................... 289
Jost Halfmann, Falk Schtzenmeister Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 289 1 Air pollution and the rise of atmospheric chemistry ..................................................... 291 2 Chemistry of the global atmosphere ozone hole and climate change ........................ 301 3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 303

Authors ..................................................................................................................... 307

Introduction
Gotthard Bechmann, Vitaly Gorokhov, Nico Stehr

Present-day society may be described as a knowledge society because of the penetration of all its spheres by scientific and technical knowledge. Past social theorists also provided descriptions that combined the attributes of social relations they regarded as constitutive of the specific nature of their particular society. So they spoke of capitalist or industrial society. It is for quite similar reasons that we label the now emerging form of society as a knowledge society, since it is increasingly clear that knowledge is the constitutive identity-defining mechanism of modern society and the (re)source of its economic activities. The historical emergence of knowledge societies is not a sudden event; it is not a revolutionary development, but rather a gradual process during which the defining characteristics of society change and new traits emerge. Even today, the demise of societies is typically as gradual as was their beginning, even if some social transformations do occur in spectacular leaps. But most major social changes continue to evolve gradually, at an uneven pace, and they become clearly visible only after the transition is already over. The proximity of our time to significant social, economic and cultural changes, however, makes it highly likely that what is now beginning to come into view is of extraordinary present and future significance. The articles in this volume were presented at a conference which took place in Moscow in October 2006. It was the first of two German-Russian colloquies with the title Chances in scientific production in the knowledge society founded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Russian Foundation of Humanistic Studies (RGNF). The other conference was held in Karlsruhe in May 2007. We would like to thank the DFG and the RGNF. Without their support, these colloquies would not have been possible. With the exception of the contributions by Jacqueline Luce and Thomas Brante, all articles are direct results of the first meeting of German and Russian colleagues.

10

Gotthard Bechmann, Vitaly Gorokhov, Nico Stehr

Knowledge and information society

The starting point for analysis of the knowledge and information society was the decade of the 1960s (e.g. Drucker 1969; Lane 1966). Especially the programmatic contribution by Daniel Bell led to a re-orientation in our understanding of modern societies. In his Venture of Social Forecasting (1973), Bell describes the outlines of a post-industrial society in which it is no longer material possession and industrial production that are the axial principle, but (theoretical) knowledge. Current contributions to this subject refer implicitly or explicitly to Daniel Bell (Webster 1995). At the same time, these theories of modern society are closely linked with observations on the information technology revolution and accompanying forms of diffusion of new information and communication technologies (cf. Stehr 2000). The increasing penetration of all areas of society by modern information technologies thus even leads to a redefinition of the social functions of speed, time and space (Castells 1996). Despite these sociological interpretations, the analysis of a major transformation of contemporary society is generally dominated by an economic perspective on the information society. Thus the use of new knowledge is regarded first and foremost as a competitive factor for technological innovations, while studies on technology transfer or on so-called national innovation systems examine the resulting institutional arrangements (Freeman/Soete 1997). The focus is therefore more on changes in the production structure and the use of technological innovations. This is less evident within the context of the concept of the knowledge society. According to Helmut Willke, one is able to speak of a knowledge society provided that all functional areas of society depend on knowledge and on the production of new knowledge (Willke 1998). In recognition of the growing importance of knowledge as the foundation of modern society, social theory considerations centre on the question about the function of knowledge, in particular of science, as a driver of the transformation process. This perspective basically goes back to classics like Max Weber. At the centre of his considerations were the systematisation, rationalisation and scientification of economy and bureaucracy. In contrast, Schumpeter (1975) underlined the innovation strength and thus also the creative character of the destruction of modern societies. According to Schumpeter, innovations are produced by exceptional entrepreneur personalities through the foundation of enterprises and creation of new markets. Knowledge is essential for this to happen; scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is an important but not indispensable condition. In the further development of this approach, newer contributions underline the integrated inclusion of scientific research. The basis is, on the one hand, the emergence of research and development departments in economic organisations

Introduction

11

and, on the other hand, the networking of innovative enterprises with research institutions. Accordingly, the decisive element is the use of distributed knowledge in post-Schumpeterian networks of innovation (Rammert 1997). These forms of super-individual use of scientific knowledge for practical purposes are also emphasised within the framework of the investigation of successful innovation locations, so-called milieux of innovation (Castells 1996). Newer theories of the knowledge society assume that knowledge represents social action potential (Stehr 2003: 31 ff). It not only makes new connections accessible in nature and society, but at the same time it produces and constructs new social realities and options for action. Other authors stress that basically all orientations, norms and values for action which were formerly unquestionably passed on become accessible to reflection (Giddens 1995). At the same time the knowledge base involves risk, because the foundations are insecure and enable risky applications by the feasibility of recombining new knowledge (Beck 1986). Information and knowledge societies are thus highly susceptible to risk. Work on the knowledge and information society is important because it clarifies that changes in science must be analysed against the background of social change and novel functions of science in society. At the same time it shows a weakness with respect to the research topic, in that it does not consider the accompanying changes in science. Theories of modern societies as knowledge societies or information societies assume a stable and context-indifferent social system of science. Consequently, only limited feedback patterns from the changing societal conditions for science are examined. Nonetheless, it is important to also consider studies and interpretations on changes within science for society.

Changing knowledge production in science

The current debate on change processes of the science system in the sociology of science is characterised by the controversial thesis of the emergence of a new mode of scientific production. It is assumed that there is a radical transformation of classical science (called Mode 1) towards a Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001). The Mode 2 thesis refers to the observation that science is increasingly exposed to pressure by public, economic and political expectations: Scientific knowledge production is supposed to provide new economic and social options with as little risk as possible. Changing societal expectations provide the general conditions for initiating substantial changes in the self-conception and predominant structures of science. Science accordingly is not only primarily directed towards the provision of general knowledge for

12

Gotthard Bechmann, Vitaly Gorokhov, Nico Stehr

society, but is expected to contribute to the solution of social problems through the production of new knowledge. The stronger integration in and linkage to socioeconomic and socio-political contexts and the demand for practical relevance are, accordingly, an expression of the changed social function of science and simultaneously a starting point for scientific reflection on its relation to society. Special attention is devoted to the role of science in the regulation processes (Jasanoff 1990) as well as to attempts at the immediate economic use of scientific knowledge, which not least implies the strengthening of property rights and other forms of commodification (Gibbons/Wittrock 1985; Etzkovitz et al. 1998). Changes in science also reveal themselves in the creation of new state and private research organisations and in new forms of knowledge use (e.g. in the form of immediate decision relations and attention in the mass media). In addition, new patterns of the institutional integration of science into society are to be observed in the shape of hybrid organisations or loose networks of cooperation. This development has been described and interpreted in its various forms. Some authors see the beginning of a post-normal science (Funtowicz/Ravetz 1993), others identify a triple helix of university, industry and state research as a future model of science (Etzkovitz/Leydesdorff 1997). The central contention of the cited authors is the societal contextualisation of science production. Knowledge, and in particular scientific knowledge, is produced according to social norms that no longer exclusively belong to the science system with its unique norms of communalism, universalism, disinterestedness and organised scepticism as stipulated by Merton (1985). Correspondingly, a transformation of the normative foundation of scientific research is postulated (Etzkovitz 1989). If one follows the new context argument, it is not the context of discovery and justification within the scientific community but the context of use that becomes decisive for knowledge production processes. The science-theoretical provocation of this thesis results from the abandonment of a strict distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, because the context of justification has also shifted to success and quality criteria. Knowledge development and application can accordingly no longer be solely controlled by means of science-internal standards and procedures (peer review). Last but not least, the development refers to the possible democratisation and participation of laymen, such as consumer groups, and to the inclusion of decision-makers from politics and industry in science policy decision processes (for example, on research budgets or on research priorities and user-driven innovation agendas, cf. von Hippel 2005).

Introduction

13

Different objections have been raised against this strongly typological perspective. On the one hand, it is not plausible to fundamentally distinguish between n two types of knowledge production, since transitions, hybrid forms and other interlocks exist within different regimes of knowledge generation. On the other hand, depending on the societal context, prevailing circumstances may differ at the national level and not all fields of science are equally affected by the same conditions. In addition, the history of science cannot be represented as a sequence of only two forms of knowledge production. Thus, elements of Mode 2 knowledge production were already in evidence at the beginning of the last century. But the need to make stronger reference to contemporary changes in science is of particular importance. Otherwise, new scientific research fields, novel forms of social ownership of knowledge as well as the significance of changing internal institutional and epistemic structural characteristics are lost from view. An inclusion of these structural characteristics is vital to assess the specific consequences of changing contextual conditions and expectations in the individual field of scientific activity. One of the major changes in societal conditions affecting the modern scientific community is the emergence of a new field of political activity, namely knowledge politics.

Knowledge politics

Anxieties and concerns about the adverse social consequences of new scientific knowledge and novel technologies are not of recent origin. The same goes for elusive promises of the blessings of science for humankind and the mitigation of human suffering that scientific advance entail. Indeed, few individuals are ready to reject the most common rationale for spending not only public monies on scientific projects, large and small. The widely shared rationale was and is that scientific projects have the potential to transform our lives into healthier, longer, wealthier, safer, and generally more pleasant lives. In a word, the advancement of knowledge functions to improve the human condition. But a persuasive case can be made that we have reached a new, modern stage in our understanding of the social role of new knowledge. Concerns about the societal consequences of an unfettered expansion of (natural) scientific knowledge are being raised more urgently and are becoming the focus of disputes in society thus moving to the top of the political agenda. In the preamble to the charter of fundamental rights in the draft of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, adopted by consensus by the European

14

Gotthard Bechmann, Vitaly Gorokhov, Nico Stehr

Convention in the summer of 2003, we find the following statement that can be interpreted as affirmation of the need by the European Union to engage in knowledge politics but also as an expression of anxieties about the impact of science and technology on individuals and society:
[...] it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in a Charter. (European Convention 2003)1

Governments will have to engage in new political activity and will be held accountable to new standards. But the state clearly will not be the only relevant actor in the context of knowledge politics. And public conflicts, frictions, and disputes over the implementation of knowledge, which are seen by at least some as attacks on science and the deliberate creation of excessive fear among the public, will no longer take place mainly a posteriori. For it is no longer uncommon that the discussion of the role of new scientific knowledge in modern societies leads to demands that such knowledge and its impact be managed in some way, regulated, or even suppressed. The question has now become pertinent (and these concerns are no longer prompted merely by the possible consequences of nuclear science and technology): How can we avoid being devoured by a marvellously powerful science? It would be too easy to dismiss calls for intervention as an irrational or anti-modern response. The concerned questions being raised and the resistance being mobilised refer back, of course, to the image that we have of ourselves, according to which we are arranging our life an image that appears to be under threat. In short, efforts to regulate and otherwise control the use of new knowledge will be at the heart of the emerging field of knowledge politics. Without question, such activities in turn will have a significant impact on the scientific community, for example, in the sense of changing public expectations, research policies and funding regimes.

Decision-oriented science

The relationship between society and science is changing. The cognition-oriented and explanatory self-understanding of science as a centre of academic contemplation far removed from actual practice, of the art of experimentation and of theory formation, as it corresponded to the ideal of classical physics, can be found today only in a few individual fields of science. Other fields, however,
1 http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00820-re01.en03.pdf.

Introduction

15

are drawn into societys decision-making processes: science as a contribution to processes of deciding and planning, but also to opinion formation, is increasingly in demand and is firmly institutionalised in large-scale research programmes and in new forms of organisation (e.g. the Helmholtz Association). At the same time, there is a re-evaluation of manners of sciences functioning and achievement potentials according to which intentionally or not even basic research is supposed to be socially relevant, and can be directed at problems of higher social, economic and political significance. In this manner, the importance of science for the economy (innovations), everyday life (consumer goods) and for politics (supplier of topics, problems, and knowledge for decision-making) increases. Science thus increases the capacity for action of the societal areas in that it not only devises explanations, but also models for shaping reality and decision alternatives. What does this development mean for the internal cognitive and social organisation of science? On the one hand, the role of the results of science and research assumes greater importance, on the other hand, the underlying action pattern is generalised, and thereby the convergence between science and society increases. The societal diffusion and communication of scientific knowledge facilitates active reference to science and improves the chances for translating scientific and political or economic problems into one another. In this sense, one comprehends the differentiation of research institutions in the economy and in politics as an important institutional precondition for structural couplings between science and politics, resp., between science and the economy, and for facilitating the establishment of trans-scientific knowledge cultures. With the rise of a knowledge-based industry and the emergence of a statesupported and strategically and pragmatically oriented societal precautionary research, new types of knowledge arise which, on the one hand, in the form of their organisation no longer fit into the classical trinity of basic research, applied research, and commercialisation; on the other hand, they transform scientifically gained empirical knowledge into tested decision-making knowledge. The emergence of decision-oriented science can be seen as the science systems response to new demands made by society on science. Decision-oriented science is characterised by two basic features:

The integration into the process of political regulation on the one hand, and into the economic process of commercialisation on the other, has the result that science loses the autonomy it long defended publicly with the philosophy of value-freedom. Value-freedom means, among other things, also the objectivity of knowledge. What is scientifically known is, for the time being, i.e. until it has been refuted, indisputable knowledge, which is valid for

16

Gotthard Bechmann, Vitaly Gorokhov, Nico Stehr

everyone. The criterion that establishes objectivity is in this case the consensus of the scientific community. But such a consensus cannot exactly be transferred into the new fields of application. Knowledge, even if produced by scientists with the aid of scientific methods, soon turns out to be contextdependent, local, unsystematically produced, in need of revision, and, above all, selective. In other words, it is essentially contested knowledge.

Science is rapidly pressing forward into fields of application in which even those interdependencies which can be comprehended or even technically created are no longer controllable. In contrast to normal science, in which science poses itself the questions it can answer with its own means, one would have to acknowledge today (especially clearly in the field of environmental research) that science is running up against the limits of its analytical and prognostic capabilities. As a result, it is important to investigate how new and expanding branches of science have to be understood, and what institutional and epistemic changes are taking place within science. At the same time, it is relevant to ask what consequences the institutionalisation of decision-oriented science has for the relationship between science and society. In this context of inquiry, the assumption is central that instead of a one-sided adaptation of politics and the economy to science complementary processes of the incorporation of political and economic orientations on the part of scientific research should be observed. The exact consequences of this change in orientation within the scientific community, the translations and transitions that accompany the transformations, the conflicts and cleavages within science remain to date, to a great extent, uninvestigated. The guiding, reflexive question, therefore, must be: What are the institutional, cognitive and epistemic consequences the new orientation of science has for the core areas of scientific research?

Knowledge and information

Many dictionaries simply define information as a certain kind of knowledge. A similar symmetry between information and knowledge is evident if one defines information as knowledge reduced and converted into messages that can be easily communicated among decision agents (Dasgupta/David 1994: 493). In other definitions of information and knowledge, information is simply conceptualised as a subspecies, as an element or the raw material of a number of knowledge forms. For example, information is codified knowledge as well as indirect knowledge (see Borgmann 1999: 49), or knowledge is defined as the cumulative