Publics and Actors in the Democratization of the Scientific Practice
Keywords:
public, science, participation, democracy, expertiseAbstract
This paper aims to explain the concept of “public” in relation to science. Considering the relational nature of this concept (there is a “public” in relation to others who are “actors”), it is possible to distinguish different degrees of public participation and implications in the regularization and development of scientific and technological activities. The general frameworks used to understand science in the 20th and 21st centuries will be analyzed, as well as the role expected from the public in each one. A classification is proposed that goes from the public as a mere passive spectator, to a responsible and critic consumer, a collaborator with regard to designing policy, and to a science producer, leaving behind being a “public” to become an “actor” within the scientific system.Downloads
References
BALLARD, H. L., TRETTEVICK, J. A. y COLLINS, D. (2008): “Comparing participatory ecological research in two contexts: an immigrant community and a Native American community on Olympic Peninsula, Washington”, en C. Wilmsen (ed.): Partnerships for empowerment: Participatory research for community-based natural resource management, Londres, Earthscan, pp. 187-215.
BAUER, M. W. (1997): Resistance to new technology: nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology, Cambridge y Nueva York, Cambridge University Press.
BAUER, M. W. (2009): “The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science—Discourse and Comparative Evidence”, Science, Technology and Society, vol. 14, nº 2, pp. 221-240.
BLOOR, D. (1976): Knowledge and Social Imagery, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
BONNEY, R., PHILLIPS, T. B., BALLARD, H. L. y ENCK, J. W. (2016): “Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 25, nº 1, pp. 2-16.
BROWN, M. (2015): “Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies”, Social studies of science, vol. 45, nº 1, pp. 3-30.
BUCCHI, M. (2008): “Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science”, en M. Bucchi y B. Trend (eds.): Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Londres, Routledge, pp. 57-76.
BURGESS, M. M. (2014): “From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 23, nº 1, pp. 48-52.
BURNINGHAM, K., BARNETT, J., CARR, A., CLIFT, R. y WEHRMEYER, W. (2007): “Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: A qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, nº 1, pp. 23-43.
CASTRO, P., y C. MOURO (2016): “‘Imagining ourselves’ as participating publics: An example from biodiversity conservation”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 25, nº 7, pp. 858-872.
CHENG, A. S., BOND, K., LOCKWOOD, C. y HANSEN, S. (2008): “Calibrating collaboration: monitoring and adaptive management of the Landscape Working Group process on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests in Western Colorado”, en C. Wilmsen (ed.): Partnerships for Empowerment: Participatory Research for Community-based Natural Resource Management, Londres, Earthscan, pp. 147-165.
CORTASSA, C. (2016): “In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 25, nº 4, pp. 447-459.
CUEVAS, A. (2019): “Jürgen Habermas y John Dewey ante la democracia deliberativa y el papel del conocimiento científico”, en A. Estany y M. Gensollen (eds.): Democracia y conocimiento, Aguascalientes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes.
CUEVAS, A. y URUEÑA, S. (2017): “Técnica, sociedad y comunicación de la ciencia”, en J. Sanmartín Esplugues y R. Gutiérrez Lombardo (eds.): Técnica y ser humano, México, Centro Lombardo, pp. 195-215.
DEWEY, J. (1929): The quest for certainty: a study of the relation of knowledge and action, Londres, Allen and Unwin.
DEWEY, J. (1938): Logic: the theory of inquiry, Oxford, Holt.
DEWEY, J. (1991): The Public and Its Problems. An Essay in Political Inquiry, Chicago, Gateway Books.
DICKINSON, J. L., ZUCKERBERG, B. y BONTER, D. N. (2010): “Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits”, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, vol. 41, nº 1, pp. 149-172.
ELAM, M. y BERTILSSON, M. (2003): “Consuming, engaging and confronting science the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship”, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 6, nº 2, pp. 233-251.
FEHÉR, M. (1990): “Acerca del papel asignado al público por los filósofos de la ciencia”, en J. Ordóñez Rodríguez y A. Elena (eds.): La ciencia y su público: perspectivas históricas, Madrid, CSIC, pp. 421-443.
FUNTOWICZ, S. O. y RAVETZ, J. R. (1990): “Post–Normal Science: A New Science for New Times”, Scientific European, vol. 169, pp. 20-22.
FUNTOWICZ, S. O. y RAVETZ, J. R. (1995): “Science in post normal age”, en L. Westra y J. Lemons (eds.): Perspectives on Ecological Integrity, Países Bajos, Springer, pp. 146-161.
GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P. y TROW, M. (1994): The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, Londres, Sage.
GOUYON, J. B. (2016): “Scientists can't do science alone, they need publics”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 25, nº 6, pp. 754-757.
GUTMANN, A. y THOMPSON, D. (1997): “Deliberating about bioethics”, Hastings Center Report, vol. 27, nº 3, pp. 38-41.
HAACK, S. (2003): Defending Science Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, Buffalo, Prometheus Books.
HAYWOOD, B. K. y BESLEY, J. C. (2014): “Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 23, nº 1, pp. 92-106.
HIRSCH, L. J. (2009): “Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals”, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 84, nº 9, pp. 811-821.
JASANOFF, S. (1995): Science at the Bar, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
KITCHER, P. (2001a): Science, Truth and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
KITCHER, P. (2001b): El avance de la ciencia, México, UNAM.
LACLAU, E. (2006): On Populist Reason, Londres, Verso.
LATOUR, B. (2007): “Turning around politics: A note on Gerard de Vries' paper”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, nº. 5, pp. 811-820.
LATOUR, B. y WOOLGAR S. (1979): Laboratory Life. The construction of scientific facts, California, Sage.
LEXCHIN, J. (2012): “Those who have the gold make the evidence: How the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications”, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 18, nº 2, pp. 247-261.
LONGINO, H. (1996): “Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy”, en L. H. Nelson y J. Nelson (eds.): Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, Londres, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 39-58.
LÓPEZ CEREZO, J. A. (2017): Comprender y comunicar la ciencia, Madrid, Los libros de la Catarata/OEI.
MARANTA, A., GUGGENHEIM, M., GISLER, P. y POHL C. (2003): “The reality of experts and the imagined lay person”, Acta Sociológica, vol. 46, nº 2, pp. 150-165.
MARRES, N. (2005): No Issue, No Public: Democratic Deficits after the Displacement of Politics, Amsterdam, Ipskamp Printpartners.
MARRES, N. (2007): “The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, nº 5, pp. 759-780.
MARRES, N. (2012): Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics, Londres, Palgrave Macmillan.
MEJLGAARD, N. y STARES S. (2010): “Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 19, nº 5, pp. 545-561.
MERTON, R. K. (1973) [1942]: "The Normative Structure of Science", en R. K. Merton (ed.): The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
MILLER, J. D. (2004): “Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 13, nº 3, pp. 273–294.
MILLER, S. (2001): “Public understanding of science at the crossroads”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, pp. 115-120.
NEURATH, O. (1983): “Sociology in the Framework of Physicalism”, en S. R. Cohen y M. Neurath (eds.): Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, Vienna Circle Collection, vol. 16, Springer, Dordrecht.
PERRAULT, S: (2013): Communicating Popular Science: From Deficit to Democracy, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
RAMÍREZ SÁNCHEZ, S. L. (2006): “Conocimiento y democracia: expertos y experticia en los procesos de socialización del conocimiento”, Península, vol. 1, nº 1, pp. 95-108.
REDDY, V., JUAN, A., GASTROW, M. y BANTWINI, B. (2009): Science and the publics: A review of public understanding of science studies, Pretoria, South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement.
RIESCH, H. y POTTER, C. (2014): “Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 23, nº 1, pp. 107-112.
RUSSELL, B. (1952): The Impact of Science on Society, Londres, George Allen & Unwin.
SARIS, W. E. (2004): “Different judgment models for policy questions: Competing or complementary”, en W. E. Saris y P. M. Sniderman (2004): Studies in public opinion: attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change, Princeton, Princeton University Press, pp. 17-36.
SHIRK, J. L., BALLARD, H. L., WILDERMAN, C. C., PHILLIPS, T., WIGGINGS, A., JORDAN, R., MCCALLIE, E., MINARCHEL, M., LEWENSTEIN, B. V., KRASNY, M. E. y BONNEY, R. (2012): “Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design”, Ecology and Society, vol. 17, nº 2, pp. 29-48.
SOKAL, A. D. (1996): “Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity”, Social Text, vol. 46/47, pp. 217-252.
TLILI, A. y DAWSON, E. (2010): “Mediating science and society in the EU and UK: From information-transmission to deliberative democracy?”, Minerva, vol. 48, nº 4, pp. 429-461.
TRENCH, B. (2008): “Towards an analytical framework of science communication models”, en J. Metcalfe, D. Cheng y S. Shi (eds.): Communicating science in social contexts, Países Bajos, Springer, pp. 119-135.
WEINBERG, A. M. (1972): “Science and trans-science”, Minerva, vol. 10, pp. 209-222.
WELSH, I. y WYNNE, B. (2013): “Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: Passive objects, incipient threats”, Science as Culture, vol. 22, pp. 540-566.
WILMSEN C. y KRISHNASWAMY, A. (2008): “Challenges to institutionalizing participatory research in community forestry in the US”, en C. Wilmsen (ed.): Partnerships for empowerment: Participatory research for community-based natural resource management, Londres, Earthscan, pp. 47-67.
WYNNE, B. (1989): “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information”, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, vol. 31, nº 2, pp. 10-39.
ZIMAN, J. (2000): Real Science. What it is and what it means, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ZIMAN, J. (2003): “Ciencia y sociedad civil”, Isegoría. Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, vol. 28, pp. 5-17.
ZORN, T. E., ROPER, J., WEAVER, C. K. y RIGBY C. (2010): “Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 21, nº 7, pp. 848-864.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
