Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy | Discussion | "Putting People Back Into the Business of Science"

Discussion

1. One of the problems in managing science, Fuller claims, is that science is decentralized. Currently, the United States lacks a cabinet level position for a policy advisor for science and technology. Also, Congress can directly appropriate funds for a particular research. Science and technology appear to be both everywhere and nowhere. As science is pervasive and decentralized, science policy in the United States tends to be uncritical. The lack of a critical approach to science policy, suggests Fuller, devalues issues involving public welfare, science education and the interests of lay persons. Explain why you agree or disagree with Fuller's position. How does the funding of social welfare programs compare to the funding of science? Why should science and technology be treated as social problems to be regulated by the government? Why should science and technology be left in the hand of private citizens?

2. In looking at examples from the history and sociology of science, Fuller presents the reader with a paradox. Traditionally, the history of science has been presented as a series of advances by individual geniuses (e.g., Newton, Darwin and Einstein). On the one hand, Fuller implies this historical rendering is false. Each "genius" had to convince contemporary audiences of their position was correct either by simplifying their views (Newton), or through the work of advocates (Darwin/Huxley, Einstein/Plank). On the other hand, Fuller argues that if one believes the progress of science is the movement from one genius to the next, then scientific advances from this historical perspective, cannot be funded. Initially, what do you think a genius is? When can a community count on a individual genius to bring about radical change? Why do you agree or disagree with Fuller's argument against the role of the genius in advancing knowledge by claiming they would fail if their ideas could not be sold to the larger community?

3. Fuller offers three strategies for managing science "scientifically." Explain these three strategies. Why do you agree with aims of these strategies? As a criteria for assessing the value of a potential scientific program, Fuller introduces the concept of "epistemic fungibility" in which he suggests the value of a particular knowledge claim and the resources needed to produce it can be assessed by how well the equipment and concepts transfer to another field of study. In introducing this principle, Fuller suggests that "big science" projects like the superconductor are wasteful because the experimental apparatus and possible determinations from its use can only be comprehended and utilized by a few experts. On one level, making a project fungible would entail that researchers present their knowledge in an accessible manner for would be users in other disciplines and fields of study. From Fuller's perspective, the superconductor would not be "epistemically fungible." Do you agree of disagree with Fuller's concept? Why or why not? Why would experts in a particular field object to this principle? Why would such a principle make science more accountable to the taxpayer?

4. Is science, according to Fuller, democratic? Whose interests are represented in the debate over "big science" projects? Why should the people who work to support the day to day activities of science ÁV laboratory technicians, project secretaries, postdoctoral fellows ÁV have a voice in the direction of a scientific or technological project? Is science funding distributed democratically?

5. If a truly national political forum concerning science and technology policy did exist, what general communicative strategies do you think experts would use to convince non-experts of their position? How could non-experts use the same strategies in order to convince experts? What strategies could non-experts employ? How do individuals or groups with different types of knowledge persuade each other?

6. One could argue that cutting edge, or advanced research in science and technology (and any number of other professions) is so inherently complex that a layperson, with only a high-school education, could not hope to understand it. What level of understanding or experience would a layperson need to make an informed decisions concerning science and technology policy? Explain whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: Given the skill, time and resources, any complex problem could be explained by a technical communicator so that a layperson could make a decision about its impact on herself and others.

7. What social obligation or responsibility do you have to become involved in science and technology policy in the United States? What shape or direction would that obligation or responsibility take?

Exercises

1. Fuller mentions T.H. Huxley as Darwin's leading advocate. Huxley gained fame as "Darwin's bulldog" in an exchange with one of Darwin's detractors -- Bishop Wilberforce -- at the meeting of the British Association at Oxford in 1860. Huxley concluded the debate by purportedly stating that he "... was not ashamed to have a monkey for an ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man (Wilberforce) who used great gift to obscure the truth." The debate can be seen as a turning point for the more general acceptance of Darwin's theory. Nevertheless questions remain about the impact and future of Darwin's work. In a brief essay assess current state of public debate over Darwin's theory, or any controversial scientific theory or technology. Where are the boundaries of the debate? Who are the advocates on each side? What role do advocates, or spokespersons play in the debate? In a similar assignment, research how breakthrough technologies and their applications -- airplanes and air travel, household technologies and household management, the potential of electricity, telephones, phonographs etc.. -- were pitched to consumers. In a short essay examine who pitched these technologies and the techniques they used. What type of images, language and arguments were employed? Is there any association made between these technologies and freedom and democracy? Were laypersons brought into the research and development manufacturing process to consult with engineers and inventors?

2. Consider the following hypothetical situation.

A bill has passed out of a committee in the House of Representatives authorizing the federal government to establish a national citizens board to review funding requests for scientific and technological development and research. The National Board for the Governance of Science and Technology (NBGST) would control the part of the federal budget, determined by Congress, allocated for the federal funding of science and technology. Given complete control of these resources, the NBGST would have the power to invest, shift, or eliminate money from any federally supported science and technology project. The NBGST could, for example, put its entire yearly budget behind a single mega-project, spread the money among various projects, or refuse to fund any project. The bill also requires that the NBGST "look like America." That is, the people appointed to the board by the president (subject to approval) would necessarily represent diverse educational and socio-economic backgrounds, social groups, beliefs, and experiences. While scientists and professional experts may sit on the board, their numbers would reflect, per capita, the total number of scientists and professional experts in the nation. For the most part, then, those sitting on the board would be laypersons with no particular background in science and technology. Scientists and technologists seeking funding would have to apply, and then testify, directly to the board to request funding. While the budget of the NBGST would be strictly maintained, if all new funds had been entirely allocated before the end of the fiscal year, the board could, if convinced by those requesting funds, shift money from one project to another. Funds would be allocated, shifted or eliminated on a straight up or down vote of the members. Each proposal could be presented only once a year.

You and other classmates (in this course) have been solicited by the congressional representative of the district in which your school is located to write a letter defining your position on the bill. The members in the class will either individually sign, or abstain from signing the letter. Compose the letter considering the following questions:

Should non-experts (laypersons) be on the board?
What do student practitioners preparing to become scientists and technologists think of the formation of the board? What do students who will not be scientists or technologists think? If there are differences of opinion among the groups, explain them.
Should the board be empowered to spend its budget in the fashion outlined in the explanation of the bill or should their power be restricted? How?
Do you think it's a good idea to have the board "look like America?" Why or why not?

3. One of the strategies Fuller proposes for making the management of science more democratic is to change the peer review system. Proposals requesting funds from government institutions are reviewed for experts in a certain field by experts in that same field. Fuller argues that as a result, peer reviewers do not ask larger questions about the relevance of certain projects, as would lay persons. President Clinton's Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit proposed new laws regarding the management of federally owned grazing lands. Babbit suggested that range management boards that used to be control by ranchers be composed of 15 people -- 5 ranchers, 5 environmentalists, and 5 residents of the area with no professional interests at stake . In order to achieve consensus, Babbit has suggested that each voting third of the committee must approve or disapprove any new policies. That is, voting would occur within each constituent block and then each block would register its approval or disapproval. Babbit's proposal sounds much like Fuller's. In a research paper, analyze the success or failure (at the moment of research) of Babbit's plan. How does your analysis of Babbit's plan shed light on the points made by Fuller?

Discussion and Exercises:
"Putting People Back Into the Business of Science"

James H. Collier and David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Discussion and Exercises:
Putting People Back Into the Business of Science

Discussion and Exercises: "Putting People Back Into the Business of Science"

James H. Collier and David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Discussion and Exercises: Putting People Back Into the Business of Science

Discussion and Exercises:
"Putting People Back Into the Business of Science"

Discussion and Exercises:
Putting People Back Into the Business of Science