GLOBAL RISKS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The classical conception of science depicted scientific knowledge production as a cumulative process which did not prioritize the practical outcomes of the research output. This conception has long been questioned as a result of the inquiries and research in the history, philosophy, and the sociology of science. The debates on the relationship between the production of scientific knowledge, social processes, ideologies and policy-making processes had brought about an argument for redefining science as a centrally-planned activity which prioritize the social benefits. On the other hand, the representatives of the opposite camp criticized such an attempt on the grounds that it will damage the autonomous structure of science which they regard as the foundational source of the scientific progress. These debates had found new grounds with the increasing dominance of the welfare state paradigm and the concomitant technocratic culture. With the dissemination of the skeptical views against scientists along with other experts in 1960s and the increasing public awareness of the global risks which were directly or indirectly caused by the advancements in science and technology, the public trust in science had dwindled. As a result, the need for assessing the role science should play in case these risks turn into crises have become a key issue of discussion. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the role science should play during the times of global crises with reference to the discussions which emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic and the recent discussion in the literature on the relationship between science and policy-making.

Keywords

• sociology of science
• science policies
• risk society
• experts

BİLİM VE TOPLUM İLİŞKİSİ BAĞLAMINDA KÜRESEL RİSKLER: COVID-19 PANDEMİSİ VAKASI

Öz

ÖZ: Klasik bilim anlayışı bilimsel bilgi üretimini toplumsal süreçlerden kopuk, pratik ihtiyaçları ikinci plana iten, bilginin birikimsel olarak arttığı bir süreç olarak tanımlar. Bu tanımlama bilim tarihi, bilim felsefesi ve bilim sosyolojisi alanlarında yürütülen tartışmalar ve yapılan araştırmalar çerçevesinde uzun süredir sorgulanır hale gelmiştir. Bilimsel bilgi üretiminin toplumsal süreçlerle, ideolojilerle ve siyasa yapım süreçleriyle ilişkisine dair yürütülen tartışmalar bilimin toplum yararına işleyen planlı bir faaliyet olarak yeniden tanımlanması gerektiği görüşünü doğurmuştur. Öte yandan karşıt kamptaki yorumcular, bilimsel gelişmenin kaynağı olduğunu varsaydıkları bilimin özerklik niteliğine zarar vereceği gerekçesiyle bu görüşü eleştirmiştir. Bu tartışmalar, refah devleti paradigmasının beraberinde getirdiği teknokrasi kültürü ile birlikte başka bir boyuta taşınmıştır. 1960’lı yıllarla birlikte diğer uzmanlarla birlikte bilim insanlarına karşı artan kuşku ve bilim ve teknolojinin ortaya çıkmalarında doğrudan veya dolayı payı olan küresel risklere dair artan bilinç bilime olan güveni sarsmış, bu durum bilimin söz konusu risklerin krize dönüştüğü noktalarda bunların çözümünde oynaması gereken rolün ne olduğu sorusunu gündeme taşımıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yakın geçmişte yaşanan Covid-19 pandemisi sürecindeki tartışmalar ile bilim ve toplum arasındaki ilişkiye dair yazında son dönemde ortaya konan değerlendirmeler çerçevesinde küresel kriz dönemlerinde bilimin siyasa yapım süreçlerinde oynaması gereken role dair bir değerlendirme sunmaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilim sosyolojisi
• bilim politikaları
• risk toplumu
• uzmanlar

Kaynakça

1. Asimov, I. (1977). Forward: The role of the heretic. D. Goldsmith (der.), Scientists confront Velikovsky. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
2. Baker, J. R. (1946). The course of the controversy on freedom in science. Nature, Vol 158: 574-578.
3. Bauman, Z. (2003). Yasa koyucular ve yorumcular: Modernite, postmodernite ve entelektüeller üzerine. Kemal Atakay çev. İstanbul: Metis.
4. Beck, U. (2011). Risk toplumu: Başka bir modernliğe doğru. K.Özdoğan ve B. Doğan çev. İstanbul: İthaki.
5. Bernal, J. D. (1946). The social function of science. Londra: George Routledge & Sons Ltd.
6. Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
7. Caldwell, C. (2020). Meet the philosopher who is trying to explain the pandemic. New York Times, 21 Ağustos 2020 (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/opinion/sunday/giorgio-agamben-philosophy-coronavirus.html 27.01.2024 tarihinde erişildi).
8. Canales, K. (2020). The face mask is a political symbol in America, and what it represents has changed drastically in the 100 years since tha last major pandemic. businessinsider.com, 29 Mayıs 2020 (https://www.businessinsider.com/masks-political-symbol-coronavirus-covid-19-spanish-1918-flu-pandemic-2020-5 27. 01.2024 tarihinde erişildi)

9. Collins, H. ve Pinch, T. (2005). Golem: Bilim hakkında bilmemiz gereken her şey. Z. Yemez çev. İstanbul: İzdüşüm.
10. Cortassa, C. G. (2017). Epistemic interactions within and outside scientific communities: Different or analogous processes?. L. Reyes-Galindo ve T. R. Duarte (der.), Intercultural communication and science and technology studies içinde (ss. 125-145). Palgrave MacMillan.
11. Crane, D. (1969). Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “Invisible College” hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 34 (3): 335-352.
12. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Çev. A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.
13. Foucault, M. (2003). Abnormal: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1974-1975. Çev. G. Burchell. Londra: Verso.
14. Golinski, J. (2005). Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
15. Gonsalves, G. (2020). Putin is playing Russian Roulette with the coronavirus vaccine. The Moscow Times, 13 Ağustos 2020 (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/08/13/putin-is-playing-russian-roulette-with-the-coronavirus-vaccine-a71133 27. 01.2024 tarihinde erişildi)
16. Gordin, M. D. /(2016). The seasonable grooviness of Immanuel Velikovsy. D. Kaiser ve W. P. McCray (der.), Groovy science: Knowledge, innovation and American counterculture içinde (ss. 207 – 237). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Grundmann, R. (2017). The problem of expertise in knowledge societies. Minerva, 55 (1): 25-48.
18. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46 (1): 1-35.
19. Habermas, J. (1977). Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, politics. J. J. Shapiro çev. Londra: Heineman.
20. Harari, Y. N. (2020). The world after coronavirus. Financial Times, 20 Mart 2020 (https://www.ft.com/content/19d90308-6858-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75 27.01.2024 tarihinde erişildi)
21. Haraway, D. (2010). Siborg Manifestosu: Yirmi yüzyılın sonlarında bilim,teknoloji ve sosyalist feminizm. G. Pusar (der.) Başka yer: Donna Haraway’den seçme yazılar içinde (ss. 45-90). Çev. G. Pusar. İstanbul: Metis.
22. Hekman, S. (2016). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve bilgi: Postmodern bir feminizmin öğeleri. Çev. B. Balkız ve Ü. Tatlıcan. İstanbul: Say.
23. Kelley, D. R. (1973). The Soviet debate on the convergence of the American and Soviet systems. Polity 6 (2): 174-196.
24. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
25. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Lepenies, W. (1981). Anthropological perspectives in the sociology of science. E: Mendelsohn ve Y. Elkana (der.), Sciences and Cultures: Anthropological and historical studies of the sciences içinde (ss. 245-261). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
27. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19 (2): 79-88.
28. Lyotard, J-L. (1984). The postmodern condition. A report on knowledge. Çev. Geoff Bennington ve Brian Massumi. Minneaplis: University of Minneaplis Press.
29. McGucken, W. (1978). On freedom and planning: The Society for Freedom in Science, 1940-1946. Minerva, 16 (1): 42-72.
30. Merchant, C. (1983). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
31. Merton,R. K. (1970). Science, technology and society in the seventeenth century England. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
32. Nowotny, H. (1993). A new branch of science, Inc. R. v. Schomberg (der.), Science, politics and morality: Scientific uncertainty and decision making içinde (ss. 63-84). Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
33. Ortner, S. B. (1972). Is female to male as nature is to culture? Feminist Studies, 1 (2): 5-31.
34. Paisley, W. (1972). The role of invisible colleges in scientific information transfer. Educational Researcher, 1 (4): 5-8 + 19.
35. Pickering, A. (1992). From science as knowledge to science as practice. A. Pickering (der.), Science as practice and culture içinde (ss. 1-26). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36. Pielke Jr., R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Polanyi, M. (1963). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1 (1): 54-73).
38. Prise, D. J. De Solla (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
39. Reichenbach, H. (1968). The rise of scientific philosophy. California: University of California Press.
40. Richards, R. J. (2008). Tragic sense of life: Enst Haeckel and the struggle over evolutionary thought. Chicago: University of Schicago Press.
41. Roszak, T. (1969). The making of a counter culture: Reflections on the technocratic society and its youthfull opposition. New York: Anchor Books.
42. Sorokin, P. A. (1960). Mutual convergence of the United States and the USSR to the mixed sociocultural type”. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 1: 143-176.
43. Stehr, N. (2001). The fragility of modern science: Knowledge and risk in the information age. Londra: Sage.
44. Stone, D. (2013). Knowledge actors and transnational governance: The private-public policy nexus in the global agora. Palgrave Macmillan.
45. Syal, A. (2020). Wearing a mask has become politicized. Science says it shouldn’t be. nbcnews.com, 1 Temmuz 2020 (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/wearing-mask-has-become-politicized-science-says-it-shouldn-t-n1232604 27.01.2024 tarihinde erişildi)
46. Weible, C. M., Nohrstedt, D., Chairney, P., Carter, D. P., Crow, D. A., Durnova, A. P., Heikkila, T., Ingold, K., McConnell ve A., Stone, D. (2020). Covid-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sciences, 53: 225-241.
47. Weinberg, A. M. (1972). Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10 (2): 209-222.
48. Werskey, P. G. (1971). Introduction: On the reception of Science at the cross roads in England. Science at the cross roads: Papers presented to the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology, 1931, içinde. (ss. xi-xxix). Londra: Frank Cass and Company Limited.
49. Wolf, Z. (2020). Russia claims a win in the vaccine race. But would you take a vaccine from Vladimir Putin?. edition.cnn.com, 12 Ağustos 2020 (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/11/politics/what-matters-putin-vaccine-race/index.html 27.01.2024 tarihinde erişildi)
50. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (3): 281-204.
51. Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. S. Jasanof, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen ve T. Pinch (der.), Handbook of science and technology studies içinde (ss. 381-388). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
52. Wynne, B. (1998). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski ve B. Wynne (der.), Risk, Environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology içinde (ss. 44-83). Londra: Sage.