Públicos e atores na democratização da prática científica
Palavras-chave:
público, ciência, participação, democracia, expertiseResumo
O objetivo deste artigo é elucidar a que nos referimos quando dizemos “púbico” no contexto científico. Levando em consideração que a noção de público é relacional (é “público” em relação a outros agentes que seriam “atores”), são propostos diferentes níveis de participação e envolvimento que o “público” possa ter na regulação e desenvolvimento da atividade científico-tecnológica. Para tanto, serão analisadas diversas concepções gerais sustentadas em relação à ciência ao longo dos séculos XX e XXI, bem como o papel esperado do público em cada uma delas. Propõe-se uma classificação que iria do mero espectador passivo, passando pelo consumidor responsável e crítico, colaborador no desenho de políticas, chegando à de criador de ciência, deixando assim de ser “público” para se tornar um “ator” dentro do sistema científico.Downloads
Referências
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
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Todas os números de CTS e seus artigos individuais estão sob uma licença CC-BY.
Desde 2007, a CTS proporciona acesso livre, aberto e gratuito a todos seus conteúdos, incluídos o arquivo completo da edição quadrimestral e os diversos produtos apresentados na plataforma eletrônica. Esta decisão é baseada no entendimento de que fornecer acesso livre aos materiais publicados ajuda a ter uma maior e melhor troca de conhecimentos.
Por sua vez, em se tratando da edição quadrimestral, a revista permite aos repositórios institucionais e temáticos, bem como aos sites pessoais, o autoarquivo dos artigos na versão post-print ou versão editorial, logo após da publicação da versão definitiva de cada número e sob a condição de incorporar ao autoarquivo um link direcionado à fonte original.
