Science, Governance and Self-Understanding From Anthropocentricism to Ecocentrism

Science, Governance and Self-Understanding: From Anthropocentricism to Ecocentrism? Hugh Willmott Cardiff Business School Working draft Please not cite without permission Apologies for its roughness Introduction `The activity of science now encompasses the management of irreducible uncertainties in knowledge and ethics, and the recognition of different legitimate perspectives and ways of knowing…As the political process now recognizes our responsibilities to future generations, to other species and indeed the global environment, science also expands the scope of its concerns’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1995: 160) Science is widely held to speak authoritatively on behalf of humanity; and is therefore favoured as a mainstay of global governance With regard to environmental problems, for example, it is widely assumed that scientific knowledge provides a reliable means of determining the resilience levels in nature-society interactions, and that it ensures the robustness of the techniques and technologies for operating within these limits, thereby facilitating a continuing process of modernization Given the authority conferred upon science, it is remarkable how little attention has been given to science by students of governance The assessment of science offered in the opening quotation underscores its contemporary dominance and pervasiveness It is noted that science now `encompasses’ the field of `ethics’ as well as `knowledge’ But it is also suggested that its very pervasiveness contributes to a heightened interest in `different legitimate perspectives and ways of knowing’ that pose a challenge to its preeminent authority Finally, Funtowicz and Ravetz link this challenge to the embeddedness of scientific practice in `the political process’; and this is seen to `expand the scope [of science’s] concerns to include `responsibility to future generations, to other species…’ The reference to other species hints at a potential for scientists to re-orientate their practices by embracing a more ecocentric, and less anthropocentric, self-understanding A high value has been placed, in the modern era, upon the products and consequences of scientific activity, including its technological applications These consequences have substantially shaped modernity and global development Media of governance are intended to provide an effective way of avoiding and/or addressing threats posed to society by advances in scientific knowledge - such as those associated, for example, human embryology and fertilization but also in respect of climate change, environmental degradation and nuclear proliferation Accordingly, modern societies have developed a range of governance mechanisms - state, market and network – to encourage the pursuit of forms of scientific practice and also to delimit their scope In this process, the anthropocentric orientation of modern science has been largely taken as given Yet, `science’1 is increasingly being challenged and problematized by doubts and uncertainties which place in question its pre-eminent authority and legitimacy (Nowatny, Pestre, Schmidt-Assmann, Schulze-Fielitz and Trute, 2005) The institution(s) of science, and potentially the self-understanding of scientists, face, and are beginning to grapple with, fading public confidence in its authority and salvational powers There remains, nonetheless, a strong residue of belief that, when properly conducted, adequately funded and effectively protected from commercial pressures (see Leydersdorff and Etkowitz, 1996), science can provide authoritative knowledge of, and solutions to, contemporary problems This belief is routinely affirmed by leading authorities who present science as neutral, impartial and the sole provider of rational solutions to pressing global problems of climate change, environmental degradation and so on In their presentations, the objectivity of science is seen to be underwritten by a faithful application of Scientific Method The scare quotes are intended to indicate the contested boundaries of this `object’ (see Gieryn, 1983) and an appreciation of how `science’ comprises diverse epistemic cultures (Gallson and Stump, 1996;Knorr Cetina, 1999) and practices (Wong and Hodson, 2008) Whatever identifying features are attributed to distinctively `scientific’ ideas or practices, they are inescapably historical as well as cultural in their formation and representation (Shapin, 2008) So, for example, science has, for the most part, been developed within Western, partriarchal institutions (Harding, 1986; Harding, 1993) It has been suggested that impartiality and neutrality are distinguishing qualities of scientific knowledge but it is also acknowledged that their meaning and realization is contingent upon the institutions which support such activity More specifically, it has been argued that `autonomy is a condition of gaining impartiality of theoretical appraisal and neutrality of theoretical claims’ (Lacey, 1999: 9) Autonomy is invoked as a defence against forms of interference – religious, moral and political – in scientific knowledge that compromise its espoused impartiality and neutrality But, as Lacey helpfully notes, autonomy is also invoked inter alia to resist `public pressure to bring about greater diversity’ in the direction and focus of science as well as to gain the freedom `to enter into compromises with whatever agencies one sees fit, without regard to the broader social interests that may be affected by the choices’ (ibid: 11) policed by peer refereeing of scientific claims Any dissent from this view is dismissed as ignorant and/or irrational From this standpoint, problems of environmental degradation and global warming - assuming that they are identified as problems at least for populations whose health and even existence is threatened by them , and not simply as naturally occurring developments - are conceived as `technical’ inasmuch that they are assumed to admit of solutions provided by knowledge derived from scientific research The issue of governance is then taken to revolve around the question of how science is to be fully empowered through adequate funding and given protection from undue interference from government and corporate agencies One of the few studies of scientists’ preparedness to reflect upon their selfunderstandings concluded that `The overwhelming sense of interview participants was that reflection and reflective learning is largely absent from the UK public dialogue network and related institutional contexts In terms of learning from public dialogues, science and policy institutions were not seen to be listening and responding in potentially changing the ways that they frame and think about key issues This includes a lack of reflection on their own assumptions and the social (and other) implications of emerging science and innovation’ (Chilvers, 2010: 35) A rather different account of science emerges from many contemporary studies of scientific practice undertaken by philosophers, historians and sociologists of science that cast doubt upon the credibility, or at least the completeness, of established (and arguably self-serving) representations of science as independent and therefore authoritative As Shapin (2010: 391) observes of this authority, `What the modern scientist may have left as a basis of authority is a kind of independence and a resulting notion of integrity’ (emphasis added) Doubts about the congruence between the selfunderstanding of science as independent and the realities of scientific practice arise when, as Shapin puts it, `the enfolding of science into institutions of wealth-making and power-projecting makes that independence harder to recognise’ (ibid) The very success of science, he concludes, has created the `successor problem’ in the form of an institutionalized dependence upon science in modern society that is accompanied by growing doubts about its practitioners’ claims to independence While this presents a problem for scientists, it is more importantly `a problem in our modern order of things: what to believe, who to trust, what to do’ (ibid) To date, very few scientists have registered the existence and profundity of this problem, and so have not engaged in discussion of it (the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, is an exception – see http://www.ucsusa.org/about/history-of-accomplishments.html - is a notable exception When scientists have responded it has been to chant the mantra of Scientific Method and peer review as a way of exorcising what is diagnosed as public irrationality and ignorance It seems unlikely, however, that repeating this mantra will dispel growing public scepticism with regard to the reliability of scientific knowledge and its capacity to solve pressing problems Instead, the most potent effect of this chanting is to reinforce a self-understanding of science and scientific practice which denies how `scientific expertise is oftentimes pluralistic, divided, uncertain, contested and normative’ (Bäckstrand, 2004: 705) The focus of this paper is upon this neglected aspect of governance: the role of scientists’ self-understandings in the organization and legitimation of their practices While they are by no means definitive in shaping the definition, direction and development of scientific practices, scientists’ selfunderstandings are significant because, in the absence of coercion and/or sufficient incentives2 but also with their impact, a change in practice is resisted without a change in self-understanding Scientists’ self-understandings are here conceived to be forged within particular, changing institutions: they are constructed, assimilated and transformed through interactions with diverse non-scientists as well as with fellow scientists (Shapin, 2008; Moore, 2008) The relevance of a focus upon self-understandings can be briefly illustrated by posing the question: what are the consequences for scientific practice when scientists conceive of themselves and their activities from within an anthropocentric, human-centred perspective? When this standpoint is taken, nature is regarded something external to humanity and is valued primarily, and perhaps only, insofar as it can be harnessed and adapted for the fulfilment of human priorities (or, in practice, primarily for the elite of humanity) Contrast this with a self-understanding in which scientists are conceived as integral to a complex organic system in which human beings enjoy no intrinsic privilege Does scientific practice have the same scope and direction when guided and governed by an anthropocentric notion of human beings as `masters of nature’ as it does when framed and governed by an ecocentric notion of science where metaphors of interdependence and mutuality prevail? Self-understandings may be developed through a personal and collective struggle, or they may be acquired with minimal reflection and/or deployed cynically for instrumental purposes A focus upon self-understandings parallels the call for a decentred theory of governance in which, instead of These qualifications are, of course, very important In particular, there is the incentivizing of what Žižek (1989) terms `enlightened false consciousness’ The scientist knows that the claims made for science are questionable and that there is `a particular interest hidden behind an ideological universality’, but s/he continues to act as if the claims were entirely credible A value-free and/or autonomous conception of science may, for example, be adopted to secure funding or minimise scrutiny and accountability (see also note 2) privileging the role of logics or structures of governance, attention is directed to how, for example, scientists `adopt certain meanings and how dilemmas prompt them to modify’ (Bevir and Rhodes, 2001: 21) the traditions, comprising `theories, narratives, and associated practices’ (ibid: 22) from which these meanings are drawn In doing so, governance is conceived `in terms of a political contest resting on competing webs of belief and to explain these beliefs by reference to traditions and dilemmas’ (ibid: 24) In the present discussion, the contest involves beliefs, or self-understandings, about science which are conceived to be rooted in particular traditions (e.g anthrocentricism, ecocentricism) These traditions are understood to be prompted by dilemmas - with respect, for example, to species’ survival – but also to be endorsed and sustained by different - technocratic and civic philosophies and processes of governance The paper is organized in four substantive sections The first section introduces the concept of governance, explores its relevance to the study of science and justifies a focus upon self-understandings as a neglected aspect of governance The second section examines mainstream studies of the governance of science to show how they exclude consideration of scientists’ understanding of their practices as they appeal to scientific method as the guarantor of science’s objectivity Consideration is then given to how two central aspects of the polity of science are significant for shaping and shifting scientists’ self-understandings The third section develops this argument by illustrating how the direction and form of science develops and changes over time; and that its contingent existence suggests the possibility of further transformation The final substantive section considers the emergence of highly complex phenomena, such as environmental degradation and climate change Science is seen to be implicated in their creation but has been found wanting, at present, in its capacity to adequately understand, predict and control them This difficulty potentially presents a challenge to scientists’ anthropocentric self-understanding which, in turn, may prompt the possibility of a shift from a technocratic to a civil form of governance Governance and Science The term `governance’ has been described as an `empty signifier which, like democracy, is `receptive to diverse definitions’ (Ezzamel and Reed, 208: 601) and, indeed, takes on distinctive meanings when adopted by scholars working in different `epistemic communities’ (ibid: 612) For researchers interested in science, the term governance has been invoked to signal the understanding that there is more to the regulation of science, than the constraining powers of state actors or government (Hirst, 2000) Attentiveness to governance explores how `rules of the game’ regulating fields of activity extend beyond and beneath state-centric structures and associated, formal modes of organization: `Reconsidered in this way, the practices and relations inherent in different modes and mechanisms of governance are more appropriately viewed as norms, rules and discourses for dealing with the conflicting, and often incompatible, demands made by internal and external stakeholder groups embedded in highly diverse and pluralistic institutional environments’ As (Ezzamel and Reed,2008: 609) Consideration of `norms, rules and discourses’ serves to foster an appreciation inter alia of how state institutions are embedded in civil society; and attention is also extended to the diverse and multi-layered ways in which spheres of activity are delimited and regulated In this light, scientific practice is understood to derive its existence, credibility and legitimacy from a wider context of `stakeholder groups’ and, through these media, is established and maintained as a polity (Fuller, 2000) The modern governance of science became institutionalized during the post-War expansion Big Science (Galison and Hevly, 1992) was placed upon a more secure, publicly funded basis and was legitimized by systematic processes of peer review During this period, science was championed as a supplier of answers to the most pressing economic and political questions – in the US context, these were questions of how to keep ahead in the arms race, how to maintain a leading position in the delivery of growth and prosperity, and how to demonstrate national preeminence through demonstrations of scientific and technological expertise (e.g getting the first satellite into orbit, putting the first human on the moon, developing supersonic air transport, etc) In response to the formation of Big Science, questions began to be raised during the late 1950s and 1960s about the `capture’ of science by governments and corporations which were channeling funding into projects with potential for enhancing national prestige, strengthening defence or swelling private profits (Moore, 2008) When science is addressed as a social and institutional practice, its wider institutional governance is opened up to critical scrutiny Scientific practice is disclosed as inescapably immanent, irrespective of what transcendental claims are attributed to science by its advocates, or in the name of its Method Amongst the most important and problematical conditions of modern science are its anthropocentricism (and its androcentricism) – features that have been excavated and problematized by ecocentric and feminist perspectives, Studying Governance Reference to the military-industrial complex was made by Eisenhower in his farewell address where he also warned of the `domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money’ (cited by Shapin, 2008: 81) Usage of the term governance can be traced to the early 1960s (see Eels, 1960) and its study now covers a wide spectrum of topics using a variety of perspectives An attentiveness to governance invites us to develop a broader understanding of the shaping and interpreting the rules of the game that provide for the coordination of actions within and through hierarchical / market / network / community, etc relations Their variety of governance studies can be appreciated by sketching differences in their focus of attention and approach At one end of a spectrum, managerial studies, sometimes described as `normative’ 5, embrace and advocate `governance’ as a complement to, or even as a substitute for, `government’ By streamlining or supplementing state-centric forms of regulation, non-state (private and voluntary) agencies and hybrid interorganizational networks are identified and commended as means of improving control and/or efficiency (Stoker, 2002) At the other end of the spectrum, critical studies place in question the intellectual coherence and/or moral defensibility of these governance media Between these poles, a range of positions offer qualified support for forms of governance and/or articulate reservations about their claims and desirability Many analysts of governance seek to contribute to an agenda set out by established studies of `government’; and most studies of governance are undertaken within and/or are directed towards, overtly political institutions When extended to ostensibly non-political institutions, such as science, their focus remains upon media of governance which are assessed to strengthen or even replace more established structures of government with regard to funding mechanisms (e.g block grants v project funding v performance evaluation), organization (e.g.; the degree of segmentation of research organizations; national and international collaborations) and so on Such studies often revolve around the question of how scientists may best be governed to ensure that the value produced by innovation is not impeded by the increasingly organized and programmatic nature of scientific knowledge production In these studies, there is rarely even passing consideration of the significance of processes of self-formation and self-understanding or their consequences Self-Understanding in Governance The distinction is not intended to imply that critical approaches are not normative They are each informed by particular value-orientations What are here termed `normative’ approaches tend to assume the legitimacy of existing ends but commend alternative means, such as markets or networks rather than hierarchies Critical approaches problematize both ends and means in relation to more or less explicitly declared value standpoints Studies of governance rarely extend to an appreciation of the role of selfdefinition and self-understanding in the organization and reproduction of the rules of the game Perhaps a thinly veiled normative preference for a poststatist, if not anti-statist, mode of regulation leads influential students of `governance’ (e.g Rhodes, 1996) to concentrate upon (hybrid) structures (e.g `network governance’) rather than directing attention to messy practicalities and accountabilities6 Whatever, the reason, the neglect of selfunderstandings is disconcerting since the very plausibility and legitimacy of `games’ of governance depend, in part, upon the self-definition of the players To be sure, players acquire and develop their self-understandings through their knowledge of, and participation in, the media of governance whose rules are subject to adaptation and regulatory reform Nonetheless, as du Gay (2007: 22; Ch 5) has noted, the particular sense of `personhood’, and associated identifications, that is acquired by human beings in their `passage through particular institutions’ is not insignificant in `regulating’ their practices To offer a rather trite example, how professional football players conduct themselves is contingent upon what it means to be a professional soccer player (committing `professional fouls’, for example) as well as upon rules that regulate the transfer of players, currently favoured systems of play, the increasing commercialization of the sport and so on There is, arguably, no `essence’ of a professional player - no true, universal `professional’ Instead, what it means to be a `professional’ – whether qua soccer player or scientist – develops and changes over time It is within evolving institutional contexts including the role and influence of trade associations, such as the Professional Footballers Association and the Royal Society - that particular players /scientists are identified as exemplars of (a shifting notion of) `professionalism’ and `excellence’ within particular areas of activity How these `professionals’ conduct themselves is informed by self-understandings that, in substantial part, are conditioned by how a particular game – of science or soccer - is organized, nationally and internationally Conduct regarded as `professional’ or `exemplary’ is not unchanging as develops within specific social or institutional contexts The conduct of science / football is not plausibly reduced to an epiphenomena of what the formal rules of the game and/or the (hierarchical / market / network / community) structures of the practice stipulate or permit There is a parallel here with students of business where the analysis of strategy is exclusively concerned with its formal content and features rather than its substantive interpretation and articulation As demonstrated or by PFA members’ election of footballer of the year or the election of new Fellows to the Royal Society, the award of Nobel Prizes, etc) The footballer Ryan Giggs, who received the footballer of the year award in 2009, is described on the PTA website as follows : ` “Whilst some players have had problems that have been highlighted in the media, Ryan has always conducted himself, and looked after himself, with supreme professionalism”’(http://www.givemefootball.com/pfa-awards/gordon-taylor-pays-tribute-to-theplayers-player-a) How governance is accomplished through `internal’ self-understandings and processes of self-regulation, as well as through `external’ regulations, protocols and incentives, can be illustrated by the more weighty example of the Global Compact The United Nations’ Compact, as Barnett and Duvall (2005) initiated an effort to redefine the self-understanding of the leaders of multinational corporations as global citizens (see Edward and Willmott, 2008) The Compact has sought to redefine these leaders/corporations as having social responsibility for planetary stewardship, and not just responsibility for maximising returns to shareholders It is of course relevant to acknowledge that such self-understandings (e.g `corporate citizenship’) are, at best, only partially incorporated; and they are contested and eroded by other, wellestablished self-understandings (Knight and Smith, 2008; see also http://globalcompactcritics.blogspot.com/) Nonetheless, a necessary dose of scepticism should not displace an appreciation of how the Global Compact is an enabler of a prospective regime of governance that `aspires to create a new kind of actor—the potentially "socially responsible corporation"—that may adhere to these best practices not because of the manipulation of incentives, but rather because of a new self-understanding In other words, the discourse is intended to produce a new "social kind" that will be self-regulating and self-disciplining’ (Barnett and Duvall, 2005: 61, emphases added) Attentiveness to the formation and reform of self-understanding resonates most closely with a small and generally marginalized set of studies, clustered at the critical end of the managerial-critical spectrum, that examine processes of `subjectification’ within regimes of governance Through these processes `human beings come to relate to themselves [and to others] as persons of a certain sort’ (du Gay, 2007: 42); and, in doing so, they are seen to become charged with attendant aspirations and responsibilities With regard to science, consideration of `subjectification’ tend to be limited to a focus upon the question of how moral virtue, in the form of dedication to scientific discipline (e.g adherence to Method) can be restored or strengthened in the face of commercial pressures and the bureaucratization of scientific work Comparatively little attention has been given to the formation and effects of self-understandings irrespective of their relevance for dedication to scientific discipline Governing Science The governance of science, as an object of study is a comparatively recent development (Boden, 2003, see especially Ch 1) Only a handful of studies has been directed explicitly to the governance of science (e.g De La Mothe, 2001b; Fuller, 2000; Perry, 2007) More often, the governance of science is casually equated with science policy (e.g Gibbons, 2001), completely omitted (e.g Lash, Szerszynski and Wynne, 1996) or is delimited to `the handling of complexity and the management of dynamic flows’ where it is conceived to be `fundamentally about interdependence, linkages, networks, partnerships, coevolution, and mutual adjustment’ (De La Mothe, 2001: 3) A common focus is differences and changes in institutional framework that are conceived to discipline scientific practice (e.g Cozzens,Healey, Rip and Ziman, 1990; Whitley and Gläser, 2007) From a critical perspective, institutionalist studies of the norms, codes of conduct, interorganizational linkages of science depoliticise and normalize governance processes by representing them as collections of impersonal and mutually supportive arrangements for preserving and/or extending (e.g as Mode 2) an uncontested conception of science An example of mainstream analysis of governance is Whitley’s (2003) discussion of public science systems Two `two particularly important dimensions of public science systems’ (ibid: 1018) are identified: the level of competition between researchers for reputations from colleagues in the same field (high or low); and the extent of intellectual pluralism and flexibility in developing new research goals (high or low) These dimensions produce a 2x2 matrix within which national or disciplinary public science systems can be located Each system is associated with institutional features of academic systems – for example, a high degree of state delegation of resource control to researchers is linked to high intensity of reputational competition and flexibility as well as to a high level of pluralism Conversely, comparatively low levels of these dimensions are associated with a stable and strong hierarchy of research organizations What is noticeable is how such studies disregard processes of `subjectification’ through which scientists `learn to conduct themselves as particular sorts of “person”’ (du Gay, 2007: 43) Mainstream studies of the governance of science routinely overlook the selfunderstandings of practitioners which, being non-uniform (Strauss and Rainwater, 1962; Cotgrove and Box, 1970) and containing elements of selfcriticism (Moore, 2008), exist in a relation of tension to a received narrative of science as unified and impartial It is a tension that can potentially challenge and radically change the scope and direction of scientific inquiry It may, for It has taken some time for science to become a focus for students of governance - a lag largely attributable to the undisputed authority assumed by science in the modern world The mundane governance of science has been taken for granted as discussion has been restricted to science policy and to the allocation and distribution of resources to different areas of scientific activity 10 start of its construction Challenges to the authority, credibility and value of science have also been posed by other developments and issues, such as the hole in the ozone layer, questions about the safety of the MMR vaccine and the so-called ClimateGate affair which followed the publication of emails from researchers working at the University of East Anglia in the UK To the extent that climate change is credibly attributed to rising greenhouse gas concentrations generated from the industrial application of scientific knowledge, then questions are begged about the governance of science in respect of a potentially catastrophic failure to study and predict these effects, thereby enabling earlier preventative measures to be taken Scientists’ collective failure to anticipate and/or highlight the effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations sooner and more prominently points to the (largely involuntary) complicity of self-understandings that continue to marginalize, if not fully exclude, the possibility of scientific founded upon a more holistic conception of physical reality This is the sort of understanding commended by David Bohm (2002) who has suggested that `not only is undivided wholeness implied in the content of physics (notably relativity and quantum theory) but also of the manner of working in physics This means that we not try always to force the theory to fit the kinds of facts that may be appropriate in currently generally accepted orders of description, but that we are also ready when necessary to consider changes in what is meant by fact, which may be required for assimilation of such fact into new theoretical notions of order’ (ibid: 181-2, emphasis in original) The dominant, anthropocentric self-understanding support scientists’ uncritical subscription to programmes of knowledge production oriented to a formulation of science geared to national competitiveness, economic growth, corporate profitability or personal kudos, rather than a formulation oriented to developing forms of knowledge and facilitating applications commensurate with ecological sustainability Scientists’ anthropocentric orientation effectively dims interest in, or awareness of, the embeddedness of human activity in a complex ecological system Study of the conditions and consequences of climate change invites critical scrutiny of the forms of governance that have supported, and which continue to affirm and preserve, entrenched selfdefinitions and normalized practices There is a widening mis-match between the authoritative status ascribed to scientific knowledge resulting in substantial investments in established forms of science, especially Big Science, and the ← • Encourage better use of science in Government, foster public service innovation, and support other Government objectives which depend on the DIUS expertise and remit.’ (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ministerial_responsibilities/departments/dius.aspx, emphases added) 19 well-being or flourishing of human beings A past chair of the US Congress Science, Space and Technology Committee lucidly articulated the concern: `Global leadership in science and technology has not translated into leadership in infant health, life expectancy, rates of literacy, equality of opportunity…Neither has it overcome failing education systems, decaying cities, environmental degradation, affordable health care, and the largest national debt in history’ (Brown, 1993: 735) There is no suggestion here that science, or even Big Science, per se can be held responsible for generating knowledge applied in the development of particular technologies, such as seeds or vaccines or for prioritizing space exploration above life expectancy and environmental preservation Rather, the issue is the governance of scientific activity that gives specific direction and orientation to scientific knowledge production, including the consequences, unanticipated as well as intended, flowing from technologies based upon scientific knowledge An alternative direction is suggested by forms of ecological science, especially where their development is accompanied by an advocacy of civic, as contrasted to technocratic, governance Learning from Ecological Science Taking its lead from the natural sciences, ecological science has been concerned with the study of (non-human) organisms in relations to their habitats, including other (non-human) organisms Within modern science, ecological science has been assigned something of a Cinderella status marginal and inferior - in relation to the benchmark physical sciences There are, however, signs – prompted by mounting concerns about climate change, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity- that the status of ecological science is changing Such concerns are increasingly attributed to human consumption of non-renewable planetary resources in which mainstream science is seen to be deeply implicated As these issues assume greater importance, it is probably that ecological science will move quite rapidly from the margins of research to assume a more central and significant position The prospect of ecological science assuming a higher profile and gaining credibility has potentially huge implications for how future scope and focus of scientific activity For ecological science threatens to bring into sharper relief the very basis and limits of established, mainstream scientific activity More specifically, ecological science can encourage critical reflection on the anthropocentricism of science and point to an ecocentric alternative To 20 appreciate the challenge, it is helpful to contrast technocratic with civic and ecocentric approaches to the governance of ecological science Governance as Technocratic Self-Understanding Governance associated with an established self-understanding of science is technocratic It assumes the possibility of rising above politics as it conceives of science as transcendental authority The challenge of governance, in respect of science, is to protect its independence and objectivity from interference any form of extra-scientific influence or accountability When applied to the field of ecological science, this mode of governance has been characterized by Bäckstrand (2004) as `ecological modernization’ It includes forms of `sustainability science’ and allied approaches to environmental problems in which nature continues to be viewed as an object of mastery and exploitation, and where science is largely confined to producing knowledge that is responsive to demands which present minimal challenges to the status quo As Shapin (2008) has reflected, this mode of governance reflects an abandonment of metaphysical ambitions amongst scientists so that today `the scientist [is] properly to be understood not on the model of the philosopher but on the model of the engineer or the technician’ (ibid: 30) Shapin relates this shift to the growing intervention of the state and commerce in the formation of Big Science and the self-understanding of its practitioners: `What the [modern] state wanted and what it increasingly could secure from scientifically trained practitioners, was not natural philosophy but instrumental expertise…[an] accelerating expansion in the links between the State, commerce, and natural knowledge had crucial bearings on appreciations of the identity of both the man of science and scientific knowledge’ (ibid: 40) This orientation is retained in forms of ecological science that advance a Big Science, anthropocentric solution to problems of global warming It is exemplified in a recent Royal Society report on `Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty’ (September 2009) From the sub-title of the report, it is evident that `governance’ is identified as a central issue But governance is examined exclusively in relation to the question of how possible techniques of geoengineering 14 are to be regulated There is no reference to the role of the self-understandings of scientists (which is taken as given), let alone to the articulation of this self-understanding in the production of, and silences within, the report The Royal Society Report assumes that selfunderstanding has no direct bearing upon how the issue of climate change is scientifically framed and addressed; or, more specifically, upon how 14 The report advises that some methods of limiting climate change (e.g stratospheric aerosols or space-based Mirrors) have `transboundary effects’ that may therefore require new (international) regulatory mechanisms of an `external’ character 21 geoengineering is identified as a relevant, scientific response to climate change A particular self-understanding of science is, arguably, deeply embedded in the report’s restriction of scientist’s responsibility to identifying and assessing the effectiveness of possible geoengineering solutions But there is no awareness of how it assumes and reinforces a particular conception of science in which a risky and invasive technical fix is considered to be the only relevant scientific response to problems attributed to climate change It is observed that `the greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientific and technical issues’ (p xi) But science is quarantined from involvement in such issues by the assumption that what is ethical and political is distinct from what is scientific and technical The credibility and acceptance of the Royal Society’s report’s recommendations inevitably depends upon a wider acceptance of, and trust in, the scientists who produced and endorsed its analysis and recommendations Yet, there is little appreciation or exploration of this dependence The report appreciates how addressing the challenges posed by the successful deployment of geoengineering will necessitate `involving the scientific, policy, commercial and non-governmental communities’ (ibid) Yet, tellingly, the membership of the committee included numerous eminent scientists but hardly anyone who might illuminate the `issues’ from a variety of standpoints or who might shed light on the concerns of `communities’ to which reference is made The committee included one lawyer and one environmental scientist but no political or social scientists or no philosophers (e.g of ethics) let alone lay persons The composition of the Royal Society committee speaks eloquently of a selfunderstanding in which the governance of science is properly confined to ensuring its assumed independence The closest the report comes to referring to issues that transgress this narrow formulation of its governance is in its acknowledgement that `public attitudes’ towards geoengineering `will have a critical bearing upon its future’ The report continues: `Perception of the risks involved, levels of trust in those undertaking research or implementation, and the transparency of actions, purposes and vested interests, will determine the political feasibility of geoengineering If geoengineering is to play a role in reducing climate change an active and international programme of public and civil society dialogue will be required to identify and address concerns about potential environmental, social and economic impacts and unintended consequences’ (ibid: xii) 22 Here the importance of trust is noted but unexplicated, with the implication that the problem resides with a public whose concerns about `impacts’ and `unintended consequences’ can be allayed by a programme of educational dialogue A `deficit model’ continues to hold sway where difficulties of `trust’ and concerns about the impact of geoengineering are diagnosed in terms of the ignorance of the public who must be educated about `impacts’ and `unintended consequences’ rather than, say, the self-understandings of the scientific community The possibility that the public might have justifiable misgivings and concerns about the role and effects of Big Science, for example, is not contemplated The message is reinforced within the Royal Society Report in a commentary upon the results of a British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) telephone survey of 1000 people The deficit model is again invoked as the results of the survey are interpreted as indicating that further research into `public attitudes, concerns and uncertainties over geoengineering should be…accompanied by appropriate educational and knowledge exchange activities, to enable better informed debate and policy making’ (ibid: 43) Tucked away on the same page is a finding from four focus groups convened by the BMRB These indicated that `there was also a general concern that geoengineering was not the right focus for action, and that low carbon technologies should be developed rather than climate intervention methods’ (ibid) This finding is unaccompanied by any commentary despite, or perhaps because, its clear implication is that members of these (representative) focus groups favoured a very different strategy for addressing climate change that marginalized geoengineering and the value of the scientific knowledge upon which it was b based In short, the Royal Society report exemplifies a self-understanding in which `scientific activity’ is abstracted from `the social, ethical, legal and political issues’ – issues that are regarded as exterior to `scientific and technical issues’ This self-understanding can allow no recognition or acknowledgment of how the report or its recommendations are inescapably `ethical’ or `political’ Civic Governance – and Beyond? `Civic science’ reflects and anticipates a re-membering and revitalization of science as a polity, where `citizens and the public have a stake in the sciencepolitics interface, which can no longer be viewed as an exclusive domain of scientific experts and policy-makers’ (Bäckstrand, 2003: 24) Science is conceived primarily as a (global) public good that, in principle, requires a democratization of science Movement in this direction includes the participation of citizens in the formation of science policy in order to improve trust and accountability A limitation of such initiatives is that they tend to accept the authority of scientists so that dialogue and deliberation is highly restricted, as in the case 23 of the Royal Society report `Geoengineering the Climate’, discussed above In effect, this approach can result in `the discursive reaffirmation of existing power relations’ ( Boudourides, 2002: 6; see also Elam and Bertillson, 2002) Greater inclusiveness is another means of developing `civic science’ – for example, by incorporating diverse ways of knowing, local forms of knowledge and scientists from a wider range of backgrounds in the production and governance of scientific knowledge Greater inclusiveness is responsive to a growing recognition of the limits of scientific knowledge in respect of uncertainty and indeterminacy that, it is argued, prompts a greater openness to the relevance of other kinds of knowledge and `a re-orientation of science toward incorporating multiple stakeholders’ (ibid: 32) Such `civic’ moves are consistent with a recognition of the plurality of the epistemic cultures comprising the production of scientific knowledge (KnorrCetina, 1999) as well as a recognition of the contingency of scientific knowledge claims Accordingly, these moves are congruent with an appreciation of how `conditions of radical uncertainty define the scientific endeavour’ (Bäckstrand, 2004: 706), as exemplified by the difficulties encountered in researching areas such as climate change and genetic engineering but also other fields such as nanoscience where assessments of risk are inestimable In the face of such uncertainty, the monopoly of authority enjoyed by science is unsettled as space opens up for the contribution of other sources and forms of knowledge in shaping its governance An acknowledged lack of certainty disrupts top-down processes of governance and so, potentially, facilitates greater engagement of citizens in determining the orientation and direction of scientific activity `Post-normal science’ shares many of the features of `civic science’ According to its advocates, post-normal science `links epistemology and governance’ and develops in contexts where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2008: 3, 1; see also Turnpenny, Lorenzoni and Jones, 2009) Specifically, the linking of epistemology and governance involves replacing truth with quality as a core evaluative concept That is to say, instead of concentrating exclusively upon the epistemic adequacy of the procedures for establishing whether a particular claim is true, a post-normal approach focuses upon the processual quality of response to situations of `radical uncertainty’ in terms of `dialogue, mutual respect and learning’ that incorporates `extended peer communities’ to `assess the quality of policy proposals, including their scientific element’ (ibid: 5) The participation of such communities, which comprise `craft wisdom’ and local knowledge (e.g citizens juries, focus groups and consensus conferences) is called upon `either when the authorities cannot see a way forward, or when they know that without a broad base consensus, no policy can succeed’ (ibid: 5) 24 To return briefly to the football parallel, `civic science’ introduces a new formation that places established practices under critical scrutiny and may foreshadow a different approach (or `system’) But the purpose of the `game’ may remain largely unchanged It is therefore questionable, as noted earlier, whether initiatives calling for the democratization of science, including those that demand greater reflexivity and inclusivity (Beck, 1992) necessarily amount to much more than an instrumental, and ultimately technocratic, attempt to restore public faith in the authoritative truth of science, and thereby restore its social effectiveness Overcoming this limitation requires a subordination of the governance of science to democratic decision-making which then allows possible alternative orientations and directions to emerge Such a shift requires more than citizens’ involvement as representatives in arenas dominated by scientists It anticipates citizens playing a full role in shaping the assumptions guiding scientific activity, including its orientation and focus of inquiry If this is to have any possibility of moving beyond a refinement or qualification of an established framing of science, then it must allow for an `agonistic’ process of governance that admits of deeply opposed positions, adversarial relations and confrontation Such governance is disruptive of established hegemony insofar as conflict occurs `over the very terms and rules of a framework seen as embodying hegemony’ (Hagendijk and Kallerud, 2003: no page number) The (radical) democratization of science opens the possibility, for example, of a shift in the governance from one dominated by anthropocentricism to one that is supportive of scientific practice governed by a more ecocentric selfunderstanding This involves a ruptural movement away from a selfunderstanding of science in which human beings are conceived to be separate from nature and our capacity to dominate and control nature is prioritised An ecocentric self-understanding, in contrast, regards the sensed separation from nature as learned rather than intrinsic, and favours scientific work that is holistic in conception where all beings are conceived as aspects of a single unfolding reality Instead of privileging a conception of human beings’ relationship to nature which invites its exploitation and domestication, an ecocentric self-understanding favours a form of governance of science that respects and appreciates the flow and wildness of nature, including human nature To draw attention to the possibility of such governance, citizens are arguably justified in engaging in `public displays of outrage in their attempts to openly shame and scandalize those in authority’ (Elam and Bertilsson, 2002: no page number) who are defenisive of normalized anthropocenticism and dismissive of any alternative In doing so, a challenge is posed to `collective deliberations which are currently experienced as highly exclusionary in character’ (ibid) Conclusion 25 Attention has been paid to the role of self-understandings in the governance of science This focus departs from established analysis which study `the impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science’ (Whitley, 2003, the sub-title of his article), and where scientific practices appear to be governed by the architecture of the regulatory frameworks that condition their work Self-understandings are seen to play no significant part in governing the scope and direction of science – an assessment which mirrors scientists’ disregard of their significance in scoping and guiding scientific practice Mainstream analysis of governance reflects and reinforces a modernizing process of political institutionalization in which a particular vision of science becomes established and normalized and thereby acquires a seeming universal, and even essential, authority This vision uncritically adopts and absorbs an anthropocentric model of science in which a premium is placed upon the control and exploitation of nature, including human beings, for purposes of wealth accumulation, national prestige and consumer satisfaction Scant consideration is given to whether or how selfunderstandings contribute to the formation and reproduction of particular frameworks It is as if these frameworks are designed and imposed entirely from outside To the extent that scientists are assessed to have any autonomy and associated responsibility, such discretion is attributed to the state’s delegation of its powers rather than to scientists’ powers of organization (Whitley, 2004,see especially, pp 1021-2) Even peer review is attributed to how `states effectively institutionalize intellectual reputation’ (ibid: 1022) Other sociologists of science have sought to remedy the disconnect between celebratory contributions to the philosophy of science and empirical studies science as a social practice (for an overview of diverse `cultural studies’ of science, see Rouse, 1992) Here, in contrast, the focus has been upon the significance of self-undertadings in the governance of scientific knowledge production, and not the close study of scientific practices It has been noted, with reference to the emergence of Big Science, that the meaning and practice of science is historically contingent This suggests that a further transformation may be possible Contemporary challenges may prompt a re-casting and expansion of scientific practice, if not a wholesale reorientation of science Climate change, in particular, but also other issues such as the disposal of nuclear waste and the impacts of genetic engineering and nanoscience, pose huge challenges to, and dilemmas for, the anthropocentric orientation of established science That is because each of these examples invites a greater appreciation of continuities and interdependencies between human beings and nature At the very least, changes in the biosphere and the implications of this change for the viability of diverse life forms tend to stimulate and intensify doubts about the current 26 orientation and direction of science, and so raise questions about the defensibility of a technocratic form of governance that takes as given, and so preserves, an anthropocentric self-understanding of science The uncertainties surrounding climate change (see Global Environmental Change, 2007), and scientists’ divided responses is suggestive of the potential mutability of their self-understandings Yet, as Bevir and Rhodes (2001: 30) have noted, `external factors influence networks and governance only through the ways in which they are understood by the relevant actors’ What Bevir and Rhodes not consider is how the population of `actors’ who are deemed, or deem themselves to be, `relevant’ is itself changed as dilemmas are framed and interpreted within different traditions Growing disillusionment with science’s anthropocentric orientation and/or loss of confidence in its technocratic governance, may foreshadow the growing appeal of an alternative, ecocentric orientation to science and a preference for its civic governance A broader reassessment and restructuring of the governance of science may be prompted as what counts as science is redefined and expanded so that scientists come increasingly to `act in radically new ways’ (ibid) Such a prospect is, of course, highly contingent upon the relationship between practitioners of science’ and a wider constituency of politicians, investors, executives, citizens, etc (see Bishop, 2003) This broad civic constituency is of critical importance as its members lend, or may withdraw, material and/or ideological support for any transformation of the governance of science - governance which, as has been argued, includes scientists’ self-understandings in shaping future directions for scientific practice Sections of these constituencies may also turn to increasingly confrontational means of political engagement when deliberative processes are monopolized and forms of direct action – in the form of marches, boycotts and sit-ins, for example - prove to be more effective in stimulating awareness, debate and change 27 References Apologies for their incompleteness Bäckstrand, K (2004), `Scientisation vs Civic Enterprise in Environmental Governance: Eco-feminist, Eco-modern and Post-modern Responses’, Environmental Politics, 13, 4: 695-714 Barnett, And Duvall, R ( 2005), eds., Power in Global Governance, Cambridge University Press Benestad, R.E and Schmidt, G.A (2009), `Solar Trends and Global Warming’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114 D14101 Bevir, M and Rhodes, R.A.W (2001), `A Decentred Theory of Governance: Rational Choice, Institutionalism and Interpretation’, Working Paper, 2001-10, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California Available at http://igs.berkeley.edu/publications/working_papers/WP2001-10.pdf Bishop, J.M (2003), How to Win the Nobel Prize, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Boden, R., Cox, D., Nedeva, M and Barker, K (2003), Scrutinising Science The Changing UK Government of Science, London: Palgrave Macmillan Bohm, D (2002), Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge Boudourides, M.A (2002), `Governance in Science and Technology’, paper given at the EASST 2002 Conference, University of York, UK Box, S and Cotgrove, S (1970), Science, Industry and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science, London: George Allen and Unwin Bush, G.W (2008), `George W Bush's Final Words on Science & Technology’, 29 January 2008, The Associated Press Also available at http://www.livescience.com/technology/080129-ap-bushspeech.html Accessed 11 January 2010 British Association for the Advancement of Science (2005 ) `Connecting Science What we know and what we don’t know about science in society, London: British Association for the Advancement of Science’, London 28 Available http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/rdonlyres/CE852B1D-769943A1-91C4-382DB5877D45/0/ConnectingScience_review.pdf at Accessed on 12 January 2010 Carson, C (2003) `Objectivity and the Scientist: Heisenberg Rethinks’ Science in Context 16(1/2), 243–269 Chilvers, J (2010) `Sustainable Participation?: Mapping out and Reflecting on the Field of Public Dailogue on Science and Technology’, Harwell: Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre Cozzens, S.E and Healey, P and Rip, A and Ziman, J (1990) The Research System in Transition Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Crawford, B (2008), `When is Consensus Science “Political Science”? The Three Paradoxes of Authoritative Assessments’, Working Paper, Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley, available at http://delong.typepad.com/berkeley_pe_notes/staff/, Accessed Nov 2009 De La Mothe, J (2001a), ed Science, Technology and Governance, London: Routledge De La Mothe, J (2001b), `Introduction’ in J de la Moth, Science, Technology and Governance, London: Routledge Edward, P and Willmott, H.C (2008), `Corporate Citizenship : Rise or Demise of a Myth?', Academy of Management Review, 33, 3: 771-772 Elam, M and Bertilsson, M (2002), `Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship’ STAGE (Science, Techhology and Governance in Europe, Discussion Paper One Ezzamel, M and Reed, M (2008), `Goverance: A Code of Multiple Colours’, Human Relations, 6,5: 597-615 Fuller, S (2000), The Governance of Sciene: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society, Buckingham: Open University Press Funkowitz, S.O and Ravetz, J.R (1995), `Science for the Post Normal Age’ in L Westra and J Lemons, eds., Perspectives on Ecological Integrity, Dortrecht: Klumer Academic Publishers 29 Eels, R.S.F (1960), The Meaning of Modern Business: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Large Corporate Enterprise, Columbia University Press Frickel, S and Moore, K (2006), eds., The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks and Power, University of Winconsin Press Funtowicz, S and Ravetz, J (2008), `Post-Normal Science’, Encyclopedia of Earth, 1-7 Available at http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science Accessed 14 January 2010 G8+5 Academies’ joint statement (2009), `Climate change and the transformation of energytechnologies for a low carbon future’ London: The Royal Society available at http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp? id=34103 Galison, P and Hevly, B (1992), Big Science: Growth of Large-scale Research, Stanford University Press Galison, P and Stump, D.J (1996), eds., The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power, Stanford University Press Gibbons, M (2001), `Governance and the New Production of Knowledge’ in J De La Mothe,, ed., Science, Technology and Governance, London: Routledge Global Environmental Change (2007), Volume 17, Issue Hagendijk, R and Kallerud, E (2003), `Changing Conceptions and Practices of Governance in Science and Technology in Europe: A Framework for Analysis’, STAGE (Science, Techhology and Governance in Europe, Discussion Paper Two Harding, S (1986), The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press Harding, S (2003), ed., The Racial Economy of Science, Indiana University Press Haywood, C.T (2000), De-Facing Power, Cambridge University Press Hirst, P (2000), `Democracy and Governance’ in J Pierre, ed., Debating Governance, Oxford University Press 30 Wong, S.L and Hodson,D (2008), `From the Horse’s Mouth: What Scientists Say about Scientific Investigation and Scientific Knowledge’, Science Education, 93, 21: 109-30 Hoggan, J and Littlemore, R (2009), Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, London: Greystone Books Knight, G and Smith, J (2008), `The Global Compact and Its Critics: Activism, Power Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility’ in J Leatherman, ed., Discipline and Punishment in Global Politics: Illusions of Control, London: Palgrave Macmillan Knorr Cetina, K (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press Lash, S., Szerszynski, B and Wynne, B (1996), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, London: Sage Levidow, L and Marris, C (2001), `Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology’, Science and Public Policy, 28, 5: 345-360 Mayntz R ( 2003), `New Challenges to Governance Theory’ in H.P Bang, ed., Governance as Social and Political Education, Manchester University Press, 2003, pp 27-40 Merchant, C (1990), The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific, San Francisco: Harper Merton, R.K (1969), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago University Press Moore, K (2008), `Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945-1975, Princeton University Press Nowatny, H (2005), `The Changing Nature of Public Science’ in H Nowatny, D Pestre, E Schmidt-Assman, H Schulze-Fielitz and H-H Trute (2005), eds., The Public Nature of Science Under Assault: Politics, Markets, Science and the Law, Berlin: Springer Nowatny, H., Pestre, D., Schmidt-Assman, E., Schulze-Fielitz, H and Trute, H-H (2005), eds, The Public Nature of Science Under Assault: Politics, Markets, Science and the Law, Berlin: Springer 31 Perry, B (2007), The Multi-level Governance of Science Policy in England, Regional Studies, Vol 41.8, pp 1051–1067 Rouse, J `What are Configurations, 1, 1: 57-4 Cultural Studies of Scientific Knowledge?’, Scarfetta, N and West, B.J (2007), `Phenomenological Reconstructions of the Solar Signiture in the Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Records since 1600’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D24S03 Scarfetta, N and West, B.J (2008),`Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?’, Physics Today, March: 50-1 Shapin, S (2008), The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation, Chicago University Press Shapin, S (2010), Never Pure, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press Strauss, A and Rainwater, L (1962), The Professional Scientist: A Study of American Chemists, Chicago: Aldine Stoker, G (2002), `Governance as Theory: Five Propositions’, International Social Science Journal, 50, 155: 17-28 Shapin, S (2008), The Scientific Life: A Moral Hitory of a Late Modern Vocation, University of Chicago Press Turner, G.M (2008), ` A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality’, Global Environmental Change, 18, 3: 397-411 Turnpenny, J , Lorenzoni, I and Jones, M (2009) `Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health’, Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 3: 347-358 The Royal Society (2009), Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty, London: The Royal Society Whitley, R (2003),`Competition and Pluralism in the Public Sciences: The Impact of Institutional Frameworks on the Organization of Academic Science’, Research Policy, 32: 1015-1029 Whitley, R and Gläser, J (2007), eds., The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Berlin: Springer 32 Exhibit `Scientists Fault Lack of Studies Over Gulf Oil Spill’ (New York Times, May 19th 2010) “Rick Steiner, a marine biologist and a veteran of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, assailed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in an interview, declaring that it had been derelict in analyzing conditions beneath the sea Mr Steiner said the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the scientific literature for more than a decade, and confirmed in a test off the coast of Norway An extensive sampling program to map and characterize those plumes should have been put in place from the first days of the spill, he said “A vast ecosystem is being exposed to contaminants right now, and nobody’s watching it,” Mr Steiner said “That seems to me like a catastrophic failure on the part of NOAA.” Mr Steiner, long critical of offshore drilling, has fought past battles involving NOAA, including one in which he was stripped of a small university grant financed by the agency He later resigned from the University of Alaska at Anchorage and now consults worldwide on oil-spill prevention and response “ 33 ... challenge to scientists’ anthropocentric self-understanding which, in turn, may prompt the possibility of a shift from a technocratic to a civil form of governance Governance and Science The term `governance? ??... restricted to science policy and to the allocation and distribution of resources to different areas of scientific activity 10 example, revalue and restore an organic relationship to the natural... forms of philosophy, history and sociology of science that might, potentially, transform their self-understanding9 Scientists’ Self-understandings Scientists’ self-understandings are of importance