Abstract
In this chapter, we wish to reflect on some of the issues we see as affecting our work, how we see the ethos of our research institutions changing, the role of science in an age in which ‘experts’ are seen as an unnecessary luxury who stand in the way of popular and populist movements but in which, at the same time, people crave the products invented, developed and produced by such ‘experts’. We take a structured approach that uses the norms of science defined by the social scientist Robert Merton (the so-called Mertonian norms) and examine how each of them is affected by the current climate for science. We also look at some cases—historical and current—to help specify the intrinsic and extrinsic challenges that a reason- and evidence-based approach to knowledge is now facing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baker, M. (2016). 1500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533, 452–454.
Bird, A. (2007). Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature, 447, 396–398.
Chinnusamy, V., & Zhu, J. K. (2009). Epigenetic regulation of stress responses in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 12, 133–139.
Ellis, R. J. (2010). Tackling unintelligent design. Nature, 463, 164–165.
Eichten, S. R., Schmitz, R. J., & Springer, N. M. (2014). Epigenetics: Beyond chromatin modifications and complex genetic regulation. Plant Physiology, 165, 933–947.
Fuller, S. (2003). Kuhn vs. popper. The struggle for the soul of science. Cambridge: Icons books Ltd. ISBN 1-84046-468-2.
Graham, L. R. (1992). Big science in the last years of the big soviet-union. Osiris, 7, 49–71.
Graham, L. R. (2016). Lysenko’s ghost. Epigenetics and Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 987-0-674-08905-1.
Hossenfelder, S. (2017). Science needs reason to be trusted. Nature Physics, 13(4), 316–317.
Janick, J. (2015). Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov: Plant geographer, geneticist, martyr of science. HortScience, 50(6), 772–776.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Li, X., & Liu, Y. (2010). The conversion of spring wheat into winter wheat and vice versa: False claim or Lamarckian inheritance? Journal of Biosciences, 35(2), 321–325.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the message. London: Penguin Books.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754.
Miller, H. I. (1995). USA biotechnology policy: The ghost of Lysenko? Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 6, 255–260.
Ollier, C. (2009). Lysenkoism and global warming. Energy & Environment, 20, 197–200.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2012). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ISBN 978-1408824832.
Porter, J. R., & Wollenweber, B. (2010). The rubisco enzyme and agricultural productivity. Nature, 463(7283), 876.
Roll-Hansen, N. (2005). The Lysenko effect: Undermining the autonomy of science. Endeavour, 29(4), 143–147.
Roll-Hansen, N. (2015). On the philosophical roots of today’s science policy: Any lessons from the “Lysenko affair”? Studies in East European Thought, 67(1–2), 91–109.
Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Schooler, J. W. (2014). Metascience could rescue the replication crisis. Nature, 515(7525), 9.
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 10(10), 507–514.
Siebert, S., Machesky, L. M., & Insall, R. H. (2015). Overflow in science and its implications for trust. ELife, 4, e10825. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10825.
Soyfer, V. N. (1989). New light on the Lysenko era. Nature, 339(6224), 415–420.
Soyfer, V. N. (2001). The consequences of political dictatorship for Russian science. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2, 723–729.
Thellier, M., & Lüttge, U. (2013). Plant memory: A tentative model. Plant Biology, 15, 1–12.
Vatiero, M., (2016). Learning from the Swiss corporate governance exception. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/07/learning-swiss-corporate-governance-exception.
Wollenweber, B., Porter, J. R., & Lübberstedt, T. (2005). Need for multidisciplinary research towards a second green revolution. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 8(3), 337–341.
Ziman, J. (2008a). Science in civil society. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1845400828.
Ziman, J. (2008b). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521893107.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Porter, J.R., Wollenweber, B. (2018). Science in an Age of (Non)Reason. In: Tressaud, A. (eds) Progress in Science, Progress in Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69974-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69974-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69973-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69974-5
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)