Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Another of Fuller's suggestions relates to peer review, which I discussed
earlier in relation to the two 'gates'. Let's suppose the previous suggestion is
considered far too radical in all democratic countries. One option would be
to widen peer review beyond its currently 'technical' orientation. At present,
when scientific research proposals seeking outside funding are reviewed, the
peers in question are usually other scientists in the relevant field. The same
is true for research papers. In each case, the focus is on the potential or actual
'quality' of the research defined in esoteric terms more-or-less set by one set
of epistemic workers. Fuller suggests that, when scientists request very large
sums of public, charitable or private money, a 'non-technical' layer of peer
review upstream accompanies the current mid-stream location. They could
be compelled to justify the potential value of intended research to a panel
of peers from entirely different subjects. For instance, a team of microbiol-
ogists requesting $10 million from America's National Institutes of Health
might be cross-examined by a panel of historians, archaeologists, musicol-
ogists and geologists. Though none of these would possess 'contributory
expertise', their 'referred expertise' would enable them to act as proxies for
wider public inspection of the intended science. Indeed, the point is that
these other academics '
themselves
constitute part of the lay public for every
branch of knowledge that goes beyond their [own] speciality
...
' (ibid.: 143,
emphasis added). They could be tasked with asking questions about the val-
ues embedded within a programme of research, as well as the various social
(or environmental) ends the results of the programme might conceivably
serve. Such questioning would be especially valuable in cases where a scien-
tific research programme eventually becomes relevant to 'abortion politics'
situations.
20
SUMMARY
In this final chapter, I've focussed on the governance of contemporary
biophysical science. I've scrutinised science because it's an extraordinarily
productive and visible maker of knowledge about nature and its collateral
referents. I've focussed on governance not just because of science's social
importance, but also to illustrate the wider stakes of regulating institutions
with significant power to represent the world to all of us. These institutions
also include the news media (my focus in
Chapter 7
), the wider mass media
and educational organisations (from primary through to tertiary levels).
The chapter has considered whether and where it's important for scientists
to pay close attention to the wider societal dimensions of their enterprise.
Beginning with 'Climate-gate' and 'Glacier-gate', I focussed on the ques-
tions of how we can trust science when most of us aren't scientists, and
how we might use scientific representations of the world once they journey
into the public domain. These questions are especially acute when 'post-
normal science' is involved and 'abortion politics' is the context in which
