Opposed to the conventional idea that science is separate from society, I would argue that science is essentially dependent upon society. Science is a process relying upon accumulated knowledge to move forward to which the public greatly contribute. Science is often mischaracterised as apart from society, when in fact there are several ways in which the public are crucial to the scientific process. Thus, science is social.
In contrast to the assumed representation that science is separate from society, “Science by the people is a more inclusive aim, and is becoming a distinctly 21st century phenomenon.” (Silvertown,2009). Citizen science is “broadly defined as the involvement of volunteers in science” (Roy et al, 2012: 5), and is a great example which highlights how the public has contributed to the scientific process which has arguably “transformed the practice of science”( Jeanne Garbarino1, Christopher E. Mason, 2016).
I would argue that science is not solely the preserve of scientists and that science is fundamentally social, therefore there needs to be a relationship between scientific expertise and the public. With the public having access to being part of the scientific process, it allows a greater appreciation, engagement and understanding of science, becoming a “powerful force for scientific inquiry”( Jeanne Garbarino1, Christopher E. Mason, 2016) which is crucial as science is a part of everyone’s lives. “Many public policy decisions involve science”(John R. Durant, Geoffery A Evans, Geoffery P Phomas, 1989). Citizen science allows for a vast array of data to be created, and these meaningful contributions help the scientific process. For example, the RSPB big garden birdwatch results have helped to inform wide reaching investigations such as the State of Nature report which warned that as much as 60% of wildlife studied across the UK could be in decline. (Ella Davies, 2013).
There are several citizen science projects like this which express that “citizen scientists are the bedrock of biological recording” (Silvertown,2009) and prove that the public are fundamental to science. Ultimately “science is not just for scientists these days” (Jeanne Garbarino1, Christopher E. Mason, 2016). Science requires society.
The reason why Citizen Science is now an “Activity that is potentially available to all” (Silvertown,2009) is due to technology which is “revolutionizing citizen science” (Mark Kinver,2012). Opposed to the conventional notion that science is separate from society, “technology can make scientists of us all”( rise of the Citizen Scientist, 2015, vol 534) as it is one way the public greatly contribute to the scientific process through a number of “online tools where you can engage with experts and learn from them, so you don’t necessarily have to be an expert yourself,” (Help Wildlife). I see that the public provide essential data that has a massive impact on the scientific process as well as being cost and time effective. At the first international conference of the European Citizen Science Association in Berlin on the 19th of May, 2016, policy officer Elena Montani stated that “We constantly need data, and data is expensive. This is very important information that society can give us”. (Nicholson, 2015). Ultimately science is social as “Much of the remarkable growth of scientific understanding in recent centuries is due to open practices; open communication and deliberation sit at the heart of scientific practice.” – (Royal Society, the public understanding of science).
Another apt example of how the public have greatly contributed to the scientific process undermining the notion that science is separate from society were the Aids activists in 1981. In an article published last year in The Globe and Mail, Adriana Barton interviewed David France, author of How to Survive a Plague, on how Aids activists helped change the course of science. The article highlights how important the public are to do with the scientific process showing that Aids activists worked with scientists to design better drug trials that we now see today. France describes how the Aids conference in Montreal in 1989 was fascinating and as a result there was a realization that science was being conducted in a way that was ineffective and the policies were working against the research. The activists were targets of that research, so they knew how the research was failing, ultimately showing that science requires society. The article expresses that Aids activism/society helping scientific process has left behind a “more humane” research strategy. This shows that society has had a major impact on the scientific process as now, every major pharmaceutical company in the world has community advisory boards where the recipients of the drugs, the people who rely on the drugs, are representing themselves. France explains how AIDS activists helped lay the groundwork for the kind of scientific research and emergency response we rely on today.
Steven Epstein in 1996 published the book Impure Science which outlines the history of AIDS research and treatment. Within the book, Epstein examines how AIDS activists became seen as credible agents of the scientific community and developed into important partners to AIDS researchers and government officials in the United States. Epstein expresses the way in which the Aids activists helped change the scientific process through a number of ways. Epstein says the Aids activists were successful in influencing the scientific process. Part of the reason Aids activist groups were so good at persuading medical researchers to try new methods was that the campaigners came from a community that had experience of arguing with the medical establishment, learning the culture of medical science presenting themselves as informed and making the scientists receptive to listen. Thus the activists brokered the relationship between researches and patients. Activists also pushed for policy that was credible both morally and scientifically. After constant efforts, AIDS activists gained authority, which usually only comes from academic degrees and institutional affiliations. They went from diseased victims to activist-experts. They became Citizen Scientists (Caren Cooper, 2014)
A case study which shows how society impacts on scientific process is outlined in Brian Wynne’s paper “Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of Science”. I looks at the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor disaster on sheep farmers in Cumbria.
Initially, the effects of the radioactive fallout were dismissed by scientists, however, after six weeks a ban was placed on the movement and slaughter of sheep in certain areas. There was confident reassurance that the ban would only last three weeks as the scientists persisted that the cesium levels would fall. Although it soon came to light that the predictions had been based on a false scientific model of behavior, thus instead of lifting the ban, restrictions were imposed indefinitely. The sheep farmers now faced ruin as their whole economic viability was dependent on rearing a crop of lambs.
One of the experiments the scientists carried out in order to manage the crisis was experimenting on the mineral bentonite to chemically absorb caesium in the soil. This experiment underlines how science requires the public to make scientific progress.
The bentonite was spread at different concentrations on different plots of land, compared with zero bentonite land. For the experiment, the sheep were fenced into certain areas of land. However, the farmers said that this would not work because if the sheep were fenced in they would lose their natural conditioning which would skew the results. Despite the farmers’ specialist knowledge, their criticisms were ignored. Following the failed experiment, the scientists did not admit to their mistakes but quietly abandoned the experiment for the reasons the farmers had identified. This demonstrates how the farmers’ knowledge was needed to contribute to the scientific process. In addition, it shows that science and society are intertwined and needed to come together as the sciences did not have a contextual understanding of the farmers’ expertise. This then meant that the farmers lost trust in the scientists. As a result of the scientists’ arrogance, it in turn naturally undermined the scientists’ credibility and left the farmers questioning the science as their assumptions were based on a lack of knowledge.
To conclude, I would argue that in contrast to the conventional notion that science is separate from society, science in fact pervades our society and is a social process that the public are needed to make meaningful contributions too in order to be part of building knowledge and constructing new ideas that effect everyone. Ultimately science and society are intertwined.