Mapping 'social responsibility' in science

被引:78
作者
Glerup, Cecilie [1 ]
Horst, Maja [2 ]
机构
[1] Copenhagen Business Sch, Dept Org, Kilevej 14A 4th Floor, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
[2] Univ Copenhagen, Dept Media Cognit & Commun, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
responsible science; responsibility; science governance; scientific profession; political rationalities;
D O I
10.1080/23299460.2014.882077
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
This article employs the Foucauldian notion of 'political rationality' to map discussions and ideals about the responsibility of science toward society. By constructing and analyzing an archive of 263 journal papers, four political rationalities were identified: the Demarcation rationality, which aims to exclude the social from the scientific production in order to make it objective and thereby responsible; the Reflexivity rationality, which sees it as science's responsibility to let itself be guided by problems in society in choice of research focus and methods; the Contribution rationality, which insists that responsible science should live up to public demands for innovation and democracy; and the Integration rationality, which advocates that science should be co-constructed with societal actors in order to be socially responsible. While each rationality is distinct, the article argues that all of them address the issue of a boundary (or integration) between science and society. Hence, it is not possible for scientists to avoid 'a relationship' with society. The political question is how this relationship is to be defined and regulated.
引用
收藏
页码:31 / 50
页数:20
相关论文
共 155 条
[1]   Risking public safety: Experts, the medical profession and 'acceptable' drug injury [J].
Abraham, J ;
Davis, C .
HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY, 2005, 7 (04) :379-395
[2]   The science and politics of medicines control [J].
Abraham, J .
DRUG SAFETY, 2003, 26 (03) :135-143
[3]   Democracy, technocracy, and the secret state of medicines control: Expert and nonexpert perspectives [J].
Abraham, J ;
Sheppard, J .
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 1997, 22 (02) :139-167
[4]   Embryos, ethics and expertise: the emerging model of the research ethics regulator [J].
Allyse, Megan .
SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2010, 37 (08) :597-609
[5]   Distinguishing genetic from nongenetic medical tests: Some implications for antidiscrimination legislation [J].
Alper, JS ;
Beckwith, J .
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 1998, 4 (02) :141-150
[6]  
Andersen D, 1999, DAN MED BULL, V46, P60
[7]   The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct - Commentary on 'Challenges in studying the effects of scientific societies on research integrity' (Levine and Iutcovitch) [J].
Anderson, MS ;
Shultz, JB .
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2003, 9 (02) :269-272
[8]  
Anderson Paul A, 2008, SAS J, V2, P155, DOI 10.1016/SASJ-2008-Comment1
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2006, NAT CELL BIOL, V8, P101
[10]  
[Anonymous], 1996, LANCET, V347, P843