Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
knowledges are currently marginalised in the mainstream (such as 'intelli-
gent design' theory in biology), and (2) what questions about nature aren't
currently being investigated by scientists. In turn, this entails reflection, if
only implicitly, on the current mix of science funders and their various agen-
das. These funders include central government and private firms primarily,
but also various research-focussed think tanks, foundations, charities and
of these, obviously, has the legal and regulatory power to alter the current
parameters for science funding (including its own funding decisions). Relat-
edly, it can also act on behalf of national or local publics to alter the current
mix of scientific knowledge that lays claim to our collective attention in
daily life. So, we're talking here about potentially far-reaching procedures
to intervene in science upstream that would go beyond piecemeal forms of
citizen engagement like juries or the Pickering RFRG.
I'll offer some hypothetical examples of what these procedures could
look like momentarily. They're hypothetical because few countries currently
have coordinated mechanisms in place to permit public scrutiny of the
whole body of national scientific inquiry. But first let's consider the ends
to which they'd be directed. According to what principles should a coun-
try's approach to the macro-governance of science be referenced? Analysts
of science have provided a range of answers. I want to follow sociologist
Steve Fuller's lead because his 'republican' political philosophy is designed
to ensure a rich 'semiotic democracy' of the sort I discussed briefly in
'Republicanism's underlying idea', Fuller writes (2000: 13), 'is that true
freedom requires the expression, not merely toleration, of different
...
[perspectives].' It's thus the enemy of two ideal-type societies, namely 'com-
munitarian' and 'liberal' ones. The former are committed to social cohesion
and stability. Here, freedom of speech and action are restricted in order
to prevent any section of the population being offended against. By con-
trast, liberal societies value change insofar as it's a result of individual
creativity or hard work'. However, they may have a weak sense of any
'public interest' beyond the aggregated self-interests of myriad individu-
als. Additionally, because some individuals command considerable wealth,
liberal societies can, paradoxically, permit de facto censorship because the
less well-off are rarely heard. In both communitarian and liberal soci-
eties, 'freedom' is unduly circumscribed when viewed through republican
lenses.
By contrast, a 'pure' republican polity would foster what a famous rebel
once called 'permanent revolution'. Unlike liberalism, it values delibera-
tion as a mechanism for mutual learning and the mutual transformation
of citizens. It regards society as more than the aggregation of individual
interests or preferences. But it recognises that mechanisms may need to
be designed that allow a myriad of perspectives to flourish and to gar-
