Science, Technology & Society

Problem 5: The Authority of science expertise Science and Technology Studies

What is the relationship between politics and science?

March of Science: knowledge science should be used more often. Should be considered
when politicians make decision. March wanted to speaking truth to power. Our assumption is
that as a scientist, you contribute to society.
What do scientists do? scientists learn specific rules to conduct research, they enlighten.
They work in isolation, regarded as right people. Scientists enlighten only a certain domain
of reality, use rules and techniques to look at things, but exclude a lot of other things. The
rest of the domain, however, is also important.
What is the value of this approach?
Technical decision making, the decisions are legitimate when you use these toolkit, thus
science can become powerful. The scientist should consider the reductive aspect of a
problem.

Know that we know: things we are aware of and understand;

Know what we dont know: things are aware of but dont understand;
Dont know that we know: things we understand but are not aware of (e.g. through
experience);
Dont know what we dont know: things we are neither aware of nor understand.
Science is making a movement from know what we dont know to know that we know.
Scientific knowledge itself is know what we know.

So, when looking at societal issues from a scientific perspective we must take into account
that: we are operating within one quadrant (boxes know that we know etc.). What
happens in the other quadrants can be relevant as well. This is due to different
perspectives, different forms of knowledge and risks (interventions). If you do scientific
interventions you to the right box to the left box.
When it comes to science and society, science can have an important say, but it has no
final say on societal issues. Scientists should not forget that there is more into political
decisions than only scientific knowledge. Scientists do not have a monopoly on knowledge.
Technologies of humility science is not that important.

Different perspectives
In the Netherlands, medication for ADHD and young adult depression has been hugely risen.
This means that scientists have had a (too) large say on societal issues, since they have
monopoly of knowledge. Moreover, they earn money the more they sell. Besides these
problem of corrupt scientists, there is also argument of being legitimate. Citizens go to their
doctor and he/she uses their perspective to diagnose them, and the citizens trust his/her
decision the solution is medicine. Example causes: parents have not that much time with
children anymore, standards of behaving like a normal child, society asks children to be
disciplined and like 30-year old. Also, when adult, there is a pressure to perform. Fertility
treatment: first work on your career, afterwards think about having children. All about the
expectations in society. Solving these problems is huge. Doctors prescription might work
for the individual, NOT for the society. When you have to make decisions on a societal
level, you always must be aware to take in account different kinds of knowledge. For people
who are in larger society, look outside your own discipline. Create different spotlights.
How knowledge can become a risk
Model of science according to Economists: Value of Risk (VAR): probability of the value.
Everyone used the models and the models became a risk in itself.
The Value of Risk was developed by economist JP Morgan, and this model was firstly used
by himself. Based on the model, they knew which value was at risk. Later on, other financial
institutions took over the model. The model predicted which value would last and which not.
These models can be very useful since they enlighten a certain part and are legitimate since
they were backed up by science. The problem with the model was that it didnt work, when
economic times were less stable, and model could not apply for that. This was a huge
problem, since everyone in the finance used it. Everyone was wrong when the financial
crises started.
Unknown unknowns: nobody know that this model could produce so much damage. Share
the risk with neighbors, which do the same. The risk seems small since we all share it risk
diversification. Then, Wolf Street crashes, everyone is suffering from it and since everyone
has done risk diversification nobody knows how to control their risk. This is an example that
knowledge could be a potential unknown and can be dangerous when it goes throughout
society. However, models are still widely used since it communicates and structures, and
offer available technologies. Flash clash: algorithms on financial markets, and the interaction
between algorithms caused a huge financial loss.

Risk: when you dont know and cant know what will happen. As we use more and more
complex technologies, risk will be a part of the human condition. The more science, the
larger the chance there will be more risk in society.

Experience based knowledge the need for knowledge complementing scientific

knowledge
Example: evidence based medicine RCT: randomized controlled trails. It started as anti-
authoritative health care, before you had evidence based medicine you had doctors who tells
you what to do based on his authority. Thus, researchers started a new method for testing to
go against authority. Used two comparable groups, in which one receives the treatment and
the other not. In this cases, it is about causality. This way of testing is still the gold standard
of medical sciences. Problem: there are unperceived factors (lurking variables). Problems
that dont fit the groups cannot be studied. Next to that, it is hard to find two similar groups.
Moreover, when you apply the findings your groups can be different than other patients. This
scientific method also has a backside. Not only when it comes to evidence, but also that
other methods are not seen as scientific. The golden standard was important for academic
careers. Additionally, golden standards taken over by health care supervisors that
incorporate the results. What was anti-authoritive, is a new power structure now. Science
has become politics. Additionally, you need other knowledge to provide an adequate
judgment for individual patient treatment/or context specific treatments.

Science versus values

Examples: animal testing, creationism vs evolution, climate. Example: CO2 Storage in
Barendrecht. Here, CO2 should be storage under the ground. The risk for this was very
small. The citizens were opposed to it, but why? people did not feel it was fair, why
should it happen there? This was a discussion of fairness. Science versus value: although
there is scientific judgment and scientists give the information, society didnt want to
conform. Important in relation between science and society. Politicians need to look in the
other interests of the people instead of just following the scientist. There was fair of the
unknown. These interests also count in decision-making.
Example 2: vaccinations. Have people the right to dont get vaccinations? One hand:
freedom of religion, other hand diseases that were eradicated can come back. Scientists can
be wrong. In the end, vaccination turned to be less correct than it was assumed in the
beginning. How valid are the results? What are the unknown things? How do we position
science within society?

Whats next?
Science has brought us a lot since it is legitimate. But within the most problems, at least you
have additional aspects you need to take into account. You should decide as a decision-
maker if to follow your experience or scientific results. Difficult to follow experience, since it is
much harder to proof and legitimate your point.
If we take this serious, start to think about new concepts of accountability on institutional
level, level of the professional and educational level.