● Science: Refers to the body of knowledge that has been produced through and validated

by systematic processes of inquiry which seek to describe, understand, and predict

natural phenomena.
● Technology: Knowledge that people apply to the task of living in their surrounding

SCIENCE AS A KNOWLEDGE
● From the definitions above, we can safely conclude that knowledge are processed
information which are generated to understand nature (science) and ultimately can be
used for practical and applied purposes (technology).

● • This description of knowledge reflects two significant features of science as knowledge:

(i) it is socially produced hence cultural and (ii) its used is largely determined by socio-
ecological forces.
○ Social Construction of Knowledge: Knowledge is not static or objective; it is
constructed within social frameworks. Different cultures, societies, and
communities have their own ways of generating, validating, and transmitting
knowledge. What is considered valid knowledge in one culture might not hold the
same status in another.

○ Cultural Influence: Culture plays a significant role in shaping knowledge. Cultural

beliefs, values, norms, and practices influence what knowledge is valued, how it
is acquired, and how it is applied. For example, traditional knowledge systems
passed down through generations in indigenous communities might differ
significantly from academic knowledge produced in Western institutions.

○ Socioeconomic Factors: Socioeconomic conditions impact both the production

and dissemination of knowledge. Access to education, resources, and
opportunities greatly influences who gets to participate in knowledge production
processes. In societies with unequal access to resources, certain voices and
perspectives may be marginalized or excluded from shaping knowledge.

○ Power Dynamics: Power relations within societies also shape knowledge

production and use. Dominant groups often control the production and
dissemination of knowledge, while marginalized groups may have their
knowledge systems dismissed or suppressed. This can perpetuate existing
inequalities and injustices.

○ Ecological Context: Socioecological factors, including environmental conditions,

geographic location, and economic systems, also influence knowledge
production. For example, agricultural practices in a particular region might be
shaped by the local climate and terrain, as well as historical and cultural factors.
● Why is western science more popular or favoured?
○ In terms of global influence and recognition, Western science has historically held
significant prominence. This is primarily due to the scientific revolutions that
occurred in Europe, particularly during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment
periods, which laid the foundation for modern scientific inquiry. Western scientific
achievements, such as the development of the scientific method, groundbreaking
discoveries in physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine, as well as technological
innovations, have propelled Western science to the forefront of global attention.

○ Moreover, Western scientific institutions, journals, universities, and research

centers have traditionally been leaders in advancing scientific knowledge and
disseminating research findings. The widespread use of the English language as
the lingua franca of science also contributes to the global reach and accessibility
of Western scientific literature and discourse.

○ However, it's essential to recognize that science is a global enterprise, and

contributions from diverse cultures and regions have enriched scientific
understanding and progress. In recent decades, there has been a growing
recognition of the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives and
indigenous knowledge systems into scientific research and practice.

○ While Western science continues to exert considerable influence globally, there is

increasing acknowledgment of the value of embracing a more inclusive and
collaborative approach to scientific inquiry that transcends geographical and
cultural boundaries.

● The story began in Prauge

○ Europe was filled with turmoil ebfore
○ Redolph the second, prague used to be filled with culture
○ Rudolph was filled with ideas
■ tycho brahe (Danish Nobleman)- He was a passionate star gazer
■ Science needed evidence and tiko was a data gatherer
● Earth must be stationary with everything going around it
● Astrolog predicts where and how planets would move
○ Copernicus died before Cepler was born - thinks that earth is in the middle
○ It had Kepler, thinking. He was thinking that the sun is a middle
○ He tried other shapes(he found the ellipse) - Kepler
■ Kepler said all planets travel in ellipses around the sun
● Dutch spy glass aka the telescope
○ Venice enjoyed this because since they are attacked by many ships. So having
this device helps enemies from a mile away
○ Galileo had a working spyglass to venice. He designed one from scratch.
○ Gas is called cristallo, first colorless glass ever produced
 ■ This helped Galileo create a Dutch Spy Glass
■ Galileo polished lenses
■ Galileo observed the phases of the moon
■ Galileo made a book on the phases of the moon. He was convinced the
sun is in the middle of the cosmos
● His timing was terrible. The catholic church wanted re-asert
control. A fight with Galileo suited them. Galileo made a book that
enranged the pope. The book is called Dialogo. It is a discussion
of series of cosmos. Galileo cam to the side that the sun is at the
center. He also stated that life is more than religion. This was a
huge challenge of the church.
● In 1633, he had a trial before inquisition.
○ Trial of Galileo, he was found guilty
○ He was condemned in life of prison
● Economic power shifted power
● One of the cargos brought coffee. They became known as penny universities.
○ Gentlemens would go to coffeeshops to alk about the universe.
○ Edmund Halley search help in Cambrige to ask Isaac Newton and tells about the
bet. Newton solved the problem but he can’t find them. The importance of this
visit triggered newtons brain a memory of 20 years before.
● Newton- why does apples always falls down
○ This brings the question about force, in related to the universe and how planets
are about.
○ He came up about the theory of Gravity
○ Newton was a scientific giant. He created universal laws.
○ Law of action and reaction
● Early 20th century
○ Oil rush
○ Oil and railway craved for fame astronomy could bring
○ One philanthropist that sold pipelines and hardware chang
○ John D hooker- builds the largest telescope ever
● Hubble said that nebula is outside the galaxy
○ Suddenly our world has been insignificant.
○ We are one small planet among other galaxies
○ The universe and vast and possibly limitless
○ The Spectograph was used to hunt galaxies
○ The universe is expanding
○ 13 billion years ago “Big Bang” Edwin hubble discovered the vastness of the
cosmos (the hubble space telescpe)

● Answers the basic question of “What is out there”

○ Before these questions are answered by the bible
○ Bible used to be the ultimate source of knowledge
 ■ The Church hated when Science came into the mix
● Technology has nothing to do with scientific discover
○ We always look at technology based on theoretical knowledge from science
however technology is independent from science
■ Technology existed first than Science
■ The world only birthed Science during reformation period
● Philosophers first observed the natural phenomena
○ The invention of flint and stone
■ This is product of trial error - it doesn’t need science
● Scientific knowledge are produced socially because humans do the inquiry
○ The purpose of this inquiry is to determine by the socioecological sources to
understand the nature of nature.

Story of Science
● Science emerged as a philosophical and political reactions to figures and
institutions of authority such as the Church and the State during earlier periods
from the Enlightenment, to Reformation, to Renaissance.
● Desires of people to understand the nature of nature
○ Science as knowledge emerge in certain context. The context may be the
works of the Ancients i.e., Aristotle and the Greek natural philosophers
and the development of technology.
● Not singlehandedly pursued by a person…inspiration and impetus came from the
works of others before them--a form of fellowship.
○ Thus, biography of science must NOT be highlighted by big science
personalities but by their immediate historical and political contexts.
■ Science are not solely the result of individual effort, but are often
influenced by the contributions of others and shaped by the
historical and political context in which they occur. It suggests that
the biography of science should focus less on highlighting the
accomplishments of prominent scientists and more on
understanding the broader social, cultural, and political factors that
shape scientific progress. In essence, it advocates for a more
contextual and holistic approach to documenting the history of
science.
 Science in antiquity: Pre-scientific worldviews
● Anthropocentric – humans are at the center of the universe
● Geocentric – the earth is at the center of the universe
● All beings have assigned places
● Humans created in the image of God but lower than angels

Religion is powerful source of explanation

● Study of nature is not important
○ This statement suggests that religion serves as a potent source of explanation,
potentially implying that it provides answers to fundamental questions about
existence, morality, and the universe. Additionally, it seems to diminish the
importance of studying nature, implying that scientific inquiry and understanding
the natural world are deemed less significant or relevant in comparison to
religious explanations. However, it's essential to note that perspectives on the
significance of religion and science vary widely among individuals and cultures,
and this statement reflects only one viewpoint.

Reformation (16th-17th Century)

● Reformation-reforming the entire institution of the Church

● Challenged the unity of established religion.

○ New Scientific Discoveries: The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution were
occurring concurrently with the Reformation. Scientists like Copernicus, Galileo,
and Kepler were making discoveries that challenged the prevailing geocentric
model of the universe supported by the Catholic Church. Copernicus proposed a
heliocentric model, which contradicted the Church's teachings about the Earth's
central position in the cosmos. These discoveries raised questions about the
literal interpretation of biblical texts and the authority of religious institutions in
matters of science.

● Led to the individualization of faith.

● Paved the way for the secularization of knowledge different from religion. (The
secularization definition refers to a decline in the importance of religion and the
supernatural or sacred.)
○ Secularization in religion refers to the process by which religious institutions,
practices, and beliefs lose their influence and authority in various aspects of
society, particularly in areas traditionally dominated by religion. One example of
secularization in religion is the decline of religious influence in government and
 lawmaking. Historically, religious authorities often played a significant role in
shaping laws and governance based on religious principles. However, as
societies modernize and become more diverse, there has been a trend toward
separating religion from state affairs.

This passage describes the Reformation, a historical period marked by significant changes in
the institution of the Church. It highlights how the Reformation challenged the unity of
established religion by introducing new beliefs and practices. Additionally, it led to the
individualization of faith, emphasizing personal interpretation and relationship with religious
teachings. Furthermore, the Reformation paved the way for the secularization of knowledge,
suggesting a shift towards separating religious authority from other realms of knowledge and
understanding. Overall, it signifies a transformative period in religious history with profound
implications for both faith and secular society.

Overall, the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries had far-reaching consequences
beyond the realm of religion. It challenged established institutions, promoted individualism,
and laid the groundwork for the secularization of knowledge, ultimately shaping the course of
Western civilization.

Enlightenment

● Focus shifted to the individual and his/her reason

● Rationality replaced revelation as source of explanation

○ Extended the influence of the reformation period with reason and rationality as
cornerstones of human action.

This passage highlights a shift towards individual reasoning and rationality as sources of
explanation, marking a departure from reliance on revelation. It suggests that during the
Reformation period, reason and rationality became central to human action, extending the
influence of this historical era beyond religious contexts. In essence, the focus shifted from
accepting traditional beliefs based on revelation to engaging in critical thinking and logical
reasoning to understand and explain the world.

Willingness to question previously held truths and search for new answers
=
 Scientific Advancement

The readiness to challenge preexisting beliefs and seek fresh solutions is synonymous with
scientific progress.
● Andreas Vesalius – human cadavers inconsistent with Galen’s
● Nicolaus Copernicus – earth moved around the sun (from Aristarchus of Samos)
● Isaac Newton – Laws of Motion and Law of Gravitation

The Ascendance of Science

● “Modern” civilization has its foundations on the scientific and technological achievements
of the past epochs (e.g. Printing Press Era, Copernican Revolution, Industrial
Revolution, et al).

● This influence and prestige are then extended to addressing both the mundane and
familiar dimensions of our social existence permeating the minutest facets of our daily
lives.

The rise of science has profoundly shaped modern civilization, drawing from past epochs'
scientific and technological advancements such as the Printing Press Era, Copernican
Revolution, and Industrial Revolution. This influence extends to addressing various aspects of
our social existence, permeating even the smallest details of our daily lives.

Observability: Counter-argument
● There are many hidden structures in society that are unobservable
● The public manifestation of human behavior does not necessarily reflect their true
feelings (Hawthorne Effect)
○ the subjects of an experimental study, change or improve their behavior because
it is being studied.
● What is visible may not necessarily be authentic (reality is socially constructed)

Society contains numerous hidden structures that evade direct observation. The outward
display of human behavior may not always align with individuals' true sentiments, a
phenomenon known as the Hawthorne Effect. Furthermore, what appears evident may not
necessarily reflect authenticity, as reality is often shaped by social constructs.
 ● An example of the Hawthorne Effect could be a workplace study where employees are
aware of being observed for productivity. As a result, they may alter their behavior to
appear more productive than usual, even if their actual feelings or work habits remain
unchanged.

● Regarding the idea of reality being socially constructed, consider the concept of gender
roles. Society often imposes expectations and norms regarding how individuals should
behave based on their gender. However, these expectations may not align with
individuals' authentic identities or experiences, illustrating how societal constructs
influence perceptions of reality.

One example of observability being challenged in science is in the field of quantum

mechanics, specifically the concept of wave-particle duality. In classical physics, objects are
typically observable and are understood to exist as either particles or waves. However, in
quantum mechanics, subatomic particles such as electrons and photons exhibit behaviors
that challenge this classical notion.

For instance, in the famous double-slit experiment, a beam of particles (such as electrons) is
fired at a barrier with two narrow slits. In classical physics, one would expect the particles to
pass through one of the slits and create two distinct bands on the detector screen behind the
barrier. However, what is observed is an interference pattern similar to that of waves,
suggesting that the particles are behaving like waves and interfering with themselves.

This phenomenon demonstrates the challenge of observability in science, as the behavior of

particles at the quantum level does not always conform to classical expectations. It highlights
the limitations of direct observation and the need for alternative methods, such as
mathematical models and theoretical frameworks, to understand the underlying reality of
quantum systems.

NEUTRALITY - S15

Knowledge is valid if it is generated from the observations of the “subject” independent of his or
her biases

● This statement suggests that knowledge is considered valid when it is derived from
observations made by an individual ("subject") without being influenced by their biases
or preconceptions.
 ○ For example, in scientific research, valid knowledge is often obtained through
objective observations and experiments conducted without bias. If a researcher
conducts a study on the effects of a new medication and carefully records and
analyzes the data without allowing personal beliefs or expectations to influence
the results, the knowledge gained from that study is considered more reliable and
valid. It is based on objective observations rather than subjective biases.

NEUTRALITY:Counter arguement - S16

● Biases will always be reflected on one’s value-judgments and interpretations of any

phenomenon (science is an interpretive activity)

● Conclusion may not always be neutral

● As a member of the scientific community, it befits scientists to operate within the

framework of the system of reason or the prevailing paradigm at that time (i.e.,
worldview)

An example of biases influencing value judgments and interpretations in science can be seen
in the historical case of the geocentric model of the universe. For centuries, astronomers
operated within the framework of the prevailing worldview, which held that Earth was the
center of the universe and that celestial bodies revolved around it. This belief was deeply
ingrained in the cultural and religious narratives of the time.

When observations contradicted the geocentric model, such as the retrograde motion of
planets, scientists attempted to reconcile these discrepancies within the existing paradigm
rather than challenging its fundamental assumptions. For example, Ptolemy proposed the use
of epicycles—smaller circles within the orbits of planets—to explain the apparent backward
motion of planets from Earth's perspective.

It wasn't until Copernicus proposed his heliocentric model, with the Sun at the center of the
solar system, that a new paradigm emerged. However, even then, Copernicus faced
resistance from the scientific community and religious authorities who were deeply
entrenched in the geocentric worldview.

This example illustrates how biases and adherence to prevailing paradigms can influence
scientific interpretations and conclusions. Scientists may be inclined to interpret evidence in a
way that aligns with their worldview or the dominant paradigm of their time, potentially
hindering the advancement of knowledge until new perspectives are considered.
 MEASURABILITY- S17
● Knowledge is valid if it can expressed in quantitative terms or through some kind of
numerical index

MEASURABILITY: Counter Argument- S18

● Natural phenomenon can be quantified using certain instruments but social phenomenon
(human behavior) is difficult to quantify (e.g. pain, LOVE, human emotions, etc.)
● Not all things that “count” (i.e., important) can be counted
● Not all things that can be quantified or counted actually counts

This statement reflects the inherent challenge in quantifying social phenomena, such as human
emotions and behavior, compared to natural phenomena that can be measured with
instruments. It suggests that while some aspects of the natural world can be quantified, not
everything that is important can be easily counted, and conversely, not everything that can be
counted necessarily holds significance.

For example, consider the concept of love. Love is a complex and multifaceted emotion that
influences human behavior and relationships, yet it cannot be quantified or measured in the
same way that physical attributes can. While we can observe expressions of love, such as
acts of kindness or affection, quantifying the depth or intensity of love is subjective and varies
greatly from person to person.

Similarly, pain is another example of a social phenomenon that is difficult to quantify. While
pain can be assessed using subjective measures such as pain scales or self-reporting, these
methods rely on individuals' interpretations and experiences, making it challenging to
objectively measure pain across different contexts or populations.

In essence, this statement underscores the limitations of relying solely on quantitative

measures to understand and evaluate complex social phenomena. It highlights the
importance of qualitative research methods, empathy, and nuanced understanding in
exploring aspects of human experience that defy simple quantification.
 EXTERNALITY OF EXPERTISE- S19
● Knowledge is valid when generated from the observation of a professional that is
detached and possesses the necessary credentials and experience in a certain field of
expertise.

This statement suggests that knowledge is considered valid when it is derived from
observations made by a professional who is impartial, detached, and possesses the requisite
credentials and experience in a specific field of expertise. In other words, expertise, objectivity,
and relevant qualifications are essential criteria for validating knowledge in a particular domain.

For example, in medical research, knowledge about a certain disease is considered valid
when it is based on observations and findings made by qualified medical professionals, such
as doctors or researchers, who have expertise in that area. Their detached and impartial
approach, combined with their credentials and experience, lends credibility to their
observations and conclusions, making the knowledge they generate more reliable and
trustworthy within the medical community.

EXTERNALITY OF EXPERTISE: COUNTER ARGUMENT- S19

● Experts are attached to their research work
● Influenced by their personal beliefs and biases
● Active advocates of particular point of view
● They are social products

1. Attachment to their research work: Experts may become emotionally invested in

their research, which could potentially cloud their judgment and make them less open
to alternative perspectives or contradictory evidence.

2. Influence of personal beliefs and biases: Like all individuals, experts have their own
personal beliefs and biases that may unconsciously influence their interpretations of
data and formulation of conclusions.

3. Advocacy of a particular point of view: Some experts may actively promote specific
viewpoints or agendas, which could lead to a biased presentation of information or a
lack of consideration for opposing viewpoints.

4. Social products: This suggests that experts are products of their social environment,
including the academic community, cultural influences, and societal norms, which may
shape their perspectives and research priorities.
Overall, this counter argument highlights the potential limitations of expertise and emphasizes
the importance of critical evaluation of expert opinions and research findings. It suggests that
skepticism and consideration of alternative viewpoints are essential for maintaining intellectual
rigor and avoiding undue influence from personal biases or external pressures.

SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD

(CHALLENGES)

OBSERVABILITY
● Knowledge is valid if it is formed out of actual observation of a phenomenon

OBSERVABILITY:COUNTERARGUEMENT- S24
● There are many hidden structures in society that are unobservable
● The public manifestation of human behavior does not necessarily reflect their true
feelings (Hawthorne Effect)
● What is visible may not necessarily be authentic (reality is socially constructed)

1. Hidden Structures: Society contains numerous underlying frameworks, systems, and

influences that may not be readily apparent or observable to the casual observer.
These structures can include power dynamics, institutional norms, cultural values, and
implicit biases, among others.

2. Hawthorne Effect: The Hawthorne Effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals
modify their behavior or performance in response to the awareness of being observed.
This suggests that the public manifestation of human behavior may not always
accurately reflect individuals' true feelings, motivations, or actions, as they may alter
their behavior consciously or unconsciously when under observation.

3. Reality as Socially Constructed: This perspective posits that what is considered

"real" or "authentic" is not an objective, fixed truth but rather a product of social
agreements, cultural interpretations, and collective perceptions. In other words, reality
is shaped by social processes, language, symbols, and shared understandings within
a particular society or community.
Taken together, these points suggest that what is observable or apparent in society may not
fully capture the complexities of human behavior, social dynamics, and underlying structures.
There may be deeper layers of meaning, influence, and interpretation that are not immediately
visible, and understanding these nuances requires critical examination, awareness of biases,
and recognition of the fluidity and constructed nature of reality.

NEUTRALITY-25
● Knowledge is valid if it is generated from the observations of the “subject” independent
of his or her biases

NEUTRALITY: COUNTER-ARGUMENT-26
● Biases will always be reflected on one’s value-judgments and interpretations of any
phenomenon (science is an interpretive activity)

● Conclusion may not always be neutral

● As a member of the scientific community, it befits scientists to operate within the

framework of the system of reason or the prevailing paradigm at that time (i.e.,
worldview)
○ In summary, while it's important for scientists to operate within the prevailing
framework of reason, strict neutrality may not always serve the best interests of
scientific progress, ethical responsibility, objectivity, or public trust. Instead,
scientists should strive for a balance between respecting existing knowledge and
paradigms while remaining open to new ideas, engaging with societal issues, and
maintaining transparency and integrity in their work.
■ REFER TO OTHER PEOPLES WORK AS WELL

MEASURABILITY-27
● Knowledge is valid if it can expressed in quantitative terms or through some kind of
numerical index
●
MEASURABILITY: COUNTER-ARGUMENT-28
● •Natural phenomenon can be quantified using certain instruments but social
phenomenon (human behavior) is difficult to quantify (e.g. pain, LOVE, human
emotions, etc.)
● Not all things that “count” (i.e., important) can be counted
● Not all things that can be quantified or counted actually counts
●

EXTERNALITY OF EXPERTISE-29
● Knowledge is valid when generated from the observation of a professional that is
detached and possesses the necessary credentials and experience in a certain field of
expertise

This statement suggests that knowledge is deemed valid when it originates from
observations made by a professional who is detached from personal biases,
possesses relevant credentials, and has accumulated sufficient experience in a
specific field of expertise. Here's a breakdown of its meaning:
1. Observation: Knowledge is derived from the process of observing
phenomena within a specific field. Observation involves actively
perceiving and documenting facts, patterns, or behaviors relevant to the
subject matter under study.

2. Professionalism: The term "professional" implies someone who is

dedicated, skilled, and knowledgeable in their chosen field. This suggests
that the individual adheres to professional standards, ethics, and
practices governing their discipline.

3. Detachment: Detachment refers to the ability to remain impartial (treating

or affecting all equally.) and objective when conducting observations and
drawing conclusions. Detachment minimizes the influence of personal
biases, emotions, or preconceived notions, allowing for more accurate
and unbiased interpretations of data.

4. Credentials: Credentials typically include formal qualifications, degrees,

certifications, or licenses obtained through education, training, and
professional experience. These credentials serve as evidence of the
individual's expertise and competence within their field.

5. Experience: Experience denotes the accumulation of knowledge, skills,

and practical insights gained through years of active involvement and
participation within a particular domain. Experience enhances the
 professional's ability to make informed judgments, anticipate outcomes,
and navigate complex situations.

In summary, the statement suggests that knowledge is considered valid when it originates from
systematic observations conducted by a detached, credentialed, and experienced professional
within their area of expertise. This implies a rigorous commitment to objectivity, competence,
and integrity in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge.

EXTERNALITY OF EXPERTISE: COUNTER-ARGUMENT-30

● Experts are attached to their research work
● Influenced by their personal beliefs and biases
● Active advocates of particular point of view
● They are social products

Thus, SCIENCE…
● Is not in the business of providing ultimate explanations

● Every scientific law or theory is subject to modifications

○ Every scientific law or theory is subject to modifications" implies that no
scientific understanding is considered absolute or final. Scientific laws and
theories are formulated based on the current evidence and observations
available at a given time. However, as new evidence is discovered or
advancements in technology allow for more precise measurements, these laws
and theories may be modified, refined, or even replaced to better fit the new
data.

● there are no universal, absolute, unchangeable “TRUTHS” in science

○ , the concept of absolute, universal "truths" in the philosophical sense is not
typically used. Instead, scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence,
experimentation, and observation. Scientific understanding is always
provisional, subject to change as new evidence emerges or as existing
theories are refined or replaced by more comprehensive explanations.

○ The scientific method is inherently skeptical and open to revision based on new
findings. Scientific theories are the best explanations available based on
current evidence, but they are always subject to modification or rejection if new
evidence contradicts them or if a better explanation is proposed.
○
● There is an ideology of science consisting of a cognitive structure(the basic
mental pattern people use to process any information.) (facts – hypothesis –
experiment – laws – theory) that dominated the social convention
 ○ The statement suggests that within society, there exists a dominant cognitive
structure or framework for understanding and conducting scientific inquiry. This
framework follows a sequential progression from gathering facts through
observation, formulating hypotheses to explain those facts, designing and
conducting experiments to test those hypotheses, deriving laws or
generalizations from the observed patterns, and finally developing broader
theories to explain the underlying principles.

The scientific method typically involves the following steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
3. Design and conduct of experiments or studies to test the hypothesis.
4. Analysis of data collected from experiments.
5. Formation of laws or generalizations based on observed patterns in the
data.
6. Development of theories to explain broader aspects of the
phenomenon, often integrating multiple related hypotheses and laws.

● While the scientific method provides a framework for generating and

testing hypotheses, it is not the only way scientific knowledge is
acquired. Other approaches, such as observational studies,
computational modeling, and theoretical exploration, also
contribute to scientific progress. Additionally, scientific inquiry is
influenced by social, cultural, and historical factors, which can shape
the questions researchers ask and the methods they use to investigate
them.

● Science is just one tradition among many. There are many ways and methods of
coming to scientific truth (Paul Feyerabend)
○ There’s not one one way of achieving scientific truth. There are other
perspectives in gathering knowledge as well.
○ Sticking to one scientific method is a hindrance
■ He believed that different cultures, historical periods, and disciplines
may employ diverse methodologies and epistemologies to investigate
phenomena. Furthermore, he argued that the strict adherence to a
single scientific method could stifle creativity and hinder progress.
○ Example Western medicine (test treatment and clinical trials) vs Chinese
Medicine traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), Ayurveda, or herbal remedies,
often rely on different methodologies. These systems may incorporate a holistic
understanding of health, considering factors such as lifestyle, diet, and
emotional well-being alongside physical symptoms. Treatments in these
systems are often based on centuries-old practices, empirical observations,
and cultural knowledge passed down through generations.

● There are questions that cannot be answered by science with all its analytic might
and power
○ Metaphysical questions: Questions about the nature of existence, reality, or
consciousness may not be amenable to scientific investigation because they
often involve subjective experiences or abstract concepts that cannot be
 directly observed or measured.

○ Value judgments: Science can provide information about the consequences of

certain actions or behaviors, but it cannot determine what is morally right or
wrong. Questions about ethics, justice, or beauty are outside the realm of
scientific inquiry and are often influenced by cultural, religious, or philosophical
considerations.

○ Personal or subjective experiences: While science can study patterns and

trends in human behavior or cognition, it cannot fully capture individual
subjective experiences such as emotions, personal beliefs, or spiritual insights.

○ Questions about ultimate origins or purposes: Science can explain many

natural phenomena in terms of underlying mechanisms or causes, but it cannot
address questions about the ultimate origins of the universe or the purpose of
human existence. These questions often transcend empirical observation and
fall into the realm of philosophy or theology.
○

● Scientism or the arrogance of science practitioners themselves is also a big challenge

1. Dismissing or ignoring alternative perspectives: Some scientists may
disregard insights from other disciplines or forms of knowledge that do not fit
within a strictly scientific framework.

2. Overconfidence in scientific findings: Scientists may sometimes overstate

the certainty or significance of their research findings, leading to
misconceptions or misinterpretations of the evidence.

3. Lack of humility in the face of uncertainty: While science is based on a

process of inquiry and revision, some practitioners may exhibit a lack of
humility by presenting scientific knowledge as absolute or infallible.

4. Insensitivity to broader ethical or societal implications: In pursuit of

scientific progress, some practitioners may overlook or downplay the potential
ethical, social, or environmental consequences of their work.

Cooperation, Collaboration, and

Competition in Science and
Technology
Issues

Profits vs Needs
● Many types of research are profitable, or less profitable than the alternatives
○ E.g. Antibiotics vs Chronic illness drugs
■ Lifestyle drugs
● Because its more profitable
● Lifestyle drug is addictive and assures marketability. These are for
those individuals for those money
● Lifestyle drugs generate greater profit
○ Paracetamol is free patented which is an open access knowledge
■ So you can keep produce
○ Chronic illness drugs
■ It’s a gem for pharma companies
■ Patents for not is allowed for the counterpart
● Humans crave for (competition is driven by profit)
○ Recognition
○ Monetary satisfaction
■ Pharma usually register what they produce (ROI)

● VOLVO FREE PATENTED THE SEATBELT

○ They saved millions of lives
 FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE
● Unprofitability of basic research
○ Fundamental science is the human pursuit of knowledge in its purest form; the
process by which we develop new theories and start to explain what we can't
understand. It is the first step in unearthing the mysteries of the universe.

● Such research is inherently uncertain: attempting to understand nature at a fundamental

level requires scientists to set up hypotheses based on educated conjecture, many of
which will inevitably be incorrect; and this promises only low returns on investment,
because it is difficult to establish intellectual property over fundamental knowledge.
○ This uncertainty arises because scientists often must formulate hypotheses
based on educated guesses or conjecture, and many of these hypotheses will
ultimately prove to be incorrect as knowledge progresses. Additionally, it implies
that investing in such fundamental research may offer only limited returns on
investment compared to applied research, as it is challenging to establish
intellectual property rights over basic scientific knowledge.

SHORT-TERMISM
● Most grants run for limited periods of time, often no longer than three years.

● But research on the biggest discoveries can take decades, and must be allowed to go
down ‘wrong’ paths occasionally.

● Short-term funding structures make scientists averse to taking such risks and pursuing
longer-term projects in general.
● Fred Sagner “ Scientists would not survive in today’s world of science”

● It takes a lot of time

○ Why researchers do short-cut. You should do research in a short time thus
limiting type of topics you can engage into
○ The greater research you can do, the more funding you can do
○ Because of pressure of deadline, people do short-cut in gathering data
○ Scientists will not survive now, because in the psat, their research takes years.
■ Everything must be done in an instant
■ Its like a factory
■ These damages science
 ‘PUBLISH OR PERISH’
● A scientist’s career advancement has been tied to their ability to publish at a breakneck
pace in prestigious journals.

● These prestigious journals are highly selective about what they publish, in that they
want to publish what allows them to sell expensive subscriptions and make a massive
profit.

● Scientists will therefore shy away from risky, long-term projects, which do not reliably
allow for the production of publishable material.
○ The statement suggests that scientists may be hesitant to pursue risky, long-term
projects that do not reliably lead to the production of publishable material. In
other words, there is a tendency for scientists to prioritize research that is more
likely to yield tangible outcomes in the form of publications, which are essential
for career advancement and securing funding.
■ SOMETHING THAT HAS MONEY

● Workers are forced to imply productions of research

○ It’s either you publish or perish here in the university otherwise you job won’t be
secured or you will be ousted from your position.
○ You have to fit to the liking of a publication journal
○ In order to legitamize yung work mo, you have to publish in a legitimize journal.
○ If you want your article to be published, you have to understand you have to
comply to what is essential in the journal institution/organization
■ Otherwise if youre study doesnt fit their theme, the study won;t be publish.
ITS ALWAYS ABOUT PROFIT .

ALIENATION
● the state or experience of being isolated from a group or an activity to which one should
belong or in which one should be involved.
● With education increasingly marketised, budding scientists are no longer trained to solve
problems creatively.
● Instead, they must be able to perform well on tests so that the university can sell itself to
new applicants.
● They measure capacity of students through tests so the university can sell itself to
applicants
○ Like DLSU that is a business school.
■ EX. we have good accountancy
 ■ EX. pressure for scientist to do research

REALITIES OF COMPETITION
● Competition between nation states, each struggling to protect their domestic industries
against foreign competition; between companies striving to obtain the intellectual
property on a discovery; and even between different research groups vying for limited
funding.

● Research groups researching the same topic will compete rather than collaborate in
order to obtain for themselves the prestige - and, crucially, the funding - that comes with
a scientific breakthrough.

1. Competition between pharmaceutical companies: Pharmaceutical

companies compete to develop new drugs and obtain patents for their
discoveries. Securing patents allows companies to have exclusive rights
to manufacture and sell the drug, providing them with a competitive
advantage in the market.

2. Competition between research groups within companies: Within

pharmaceutical companies, different research teams or departments may
compete for resources and recognition. Each team strives to make
significant discoveries or advancements that can lead to the development
of successful drugs, which can enhance the company's reputation and
profitability.

3. Competition between research groups in academia: Similarly,

academic research groups studying pharmaceuticals may compete for
grants and funding opportunities. Research groups may focus on similar
areas of study, aiming to make groundbreaking discoveries that attract
attention and funding from government agencies, private foundations, or
pharmaceutical companies.

4. Competition for intellectual property: Once a research group develops

a promising drug candidate, there is competition to secure intellectual
property rights through patents. Pharmaceutical companies invest
significant resources in obtaining patents to protect their discoveries and
prevent competitors from replicating their work or bringing similar
products to market.
 ● Competition does not accelerate innovation…in this day-and-age it acts as a
major impediment.
● causes an enormous waste of scientific resources reduces the ability of scientists
to rely on each other’s work.

1. Competition as an impediment to innovation: While competition is

often thought to drive innovation by incentivizing individuals and
organizations to outperform their rivals, the statement argues that in the
modern context, excessive competition can actually hinder innovation.
This is because intense competition may lead to a focus on short-term
gains and defensive strategies rather than long-term investment in
innovative research and development.

2. Waste of scientific resources: Competition can result in the duplication

of research efforts as multiple groups or companies independently pursue
similar goals. This duplication leads to a waste of scientific resources,
including time, funding, and expertise, that could be better allocated to
new or underexplored areas of research.

3. Reduced collaboration and trust: Intense competition may erode trust

and collaboration among scientists and research institutions. Instead of
sharing knowledge and building upon each other's work, scientists may
become reluctant to collaborate or share data for fear of being scooped
by competitors. This reduces the collective ability of scientists to rely on
and benefit from each other's contributions, slowing down the pace of
scientific progress.
a. In this competitive environment, there were instances where
research groups were hesitant to share data or collaborate with
others for fear of losing their competitive edge. Some researchers
worried that sharing preliminary findings or data could lead to their
work being exploited by competitors, potentially resulting in being
"scooped" – where another group publishes similar findings first
and gains credit for the discovery.

Collaboration
● Removing the anarchy of competition - between companies and between nations - we
could ensure that all research, results, and resources are fully shared, without any
squandering, duplication, and waste.
1. Eliminating competition: The statement proposes removing the competitive
dynamics that exist between companies and nations in the realm of research.
Competition often leads to secrecy, duplication of efforts, and a reluctance to
 share information or resources due to concerns about losing a competitive
advantage. By eliminating this competition, researchers would be more inclined
to collaborate openly and share their findings and resources with others.

2. Full sharing of research: Without the barriers imposed by competition,

researchers would be able to freely share their research findings, data, and
resources with each other. This sharing would facilitate collaboration and allow
researchers to build upon each other's work more effectively, leading to greater
scientific progress and innovation.

3. Eliminating waste and duplication: By sharing research efforts and resources

more openly, the statement suggests that it would be possible to avoid the
duplication of research and the squandering of resources that often occur in
competitive environments. Researchers would be able to coordinate their efforts
more efficiently, reducing redundancy and ensuring that resources are allocated
where they are most needed.

Science would be recognised as a social endeavour. And the gains of every breakthrough,
based on the contributions made by generations, would be distributed equitably on the basis
of need.

-utilise the full human potential that exists across the world.

● Ex. volvo seatbelt which saved many lives

”The 63 relevant findings that resulted were subjected to a meta-analysis for purposes
of integration. Members of cooperative teams outperformed individuals competing with
each other on all 4 types of problem solving (effect sizes = 0.37, 0.72, 0.52, 0.60,
respectively). These results held for individuals of all ages and for studies of high,
medium, and low quality.”

Cooperative versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving

Zhining Qin, David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (1995)
 PRESENTATION OF OUTPUT

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (COOPERATION)

Pros
● Scientists should share data since scientist have hectic schedules (share information
together), give them time to discover more about the world

Cons
● Scientists steal each others work

DRAWBACK OF COLLABORATION
● Issue on recognition, who might get recognition for the research paper.
○ Who will get most recognition
 ○ Sometimes lead researcher (Discovery of Pulzar Star): Scientist who was
supervising a student (status of the person will get recognition)

3. Competition allows scientist to disapprove or question ther competitors research, theory and
results. This means that they indirectly do not allow other scientist in that same field to have
confirmation bias ( a psychological term for the human tendency to only seek out information
that supports one position or idea), which results in science not being stagnated or impeded du
to the information having a lack of evidence.
a. Through the process of scientific competition, researchers scrutinize each other's
work, critically evaluating the methodologies, assumptions, and conclusions of
their peers. This scrutiny helps to identify potential biases, errors, or oversights in
research findings, preventing confirmation bias from influencing the interpretation
of climate data.

Examples
- Companies keep data as a secret which stops progress

Highlighted
- Competition as a driver of innovation
- The more competition there si, the faster the innovation is in society
- Pushes scientists (gives adrenaline to stay on the competition)
- BENEFITS WE GET COMPETITION- There is profit
- Collaboration gives open knowledge

DRAWBACKS
- Secrecy
- Exculisivity - Science is suppose to be there to produce knowledge
- In science there should be accessibility in information and to everyone
- Though in real life, there is exclusivity in knowledge
- You want to protect what is yours
- Rushed output because you want a competitive edge because you want to be
recognized as the “FIRST”: SHAKY DATA
- Confirmation bias (problem of neutrality): research want their hypothesis
to be right compromising output
n

It was a necessity for science to flourish

- You need science to be accessible for new knowledge to develop
- Works of early scientist
- This is so researchers don’t have to go back to step one
- With the secrecy of information (instead of helping scientist to start with step 2, its a
waste of time)
- Pharma: patent ownership and knowledge of information
ISSUES
Profits vs Needs
● Many types of research are profitable, or less profitable than the alternatives
○ E.g. Antibiotics vs Chronic illness drugs
■ Lifestyle drugs
● Because its more profitable
● Lifestyle drug is addictive and assures marketability. These are for
those individuals for those money
● Lifestyle drugs generate greater profit
○ Paracetamol is free patented which is an open access knowledge
■ So you can keep produce
○ Chronic illness drugs
■ It’s a gem for pharma companies
■ Patents for not is allowed for the counterpart
● Humans crave for (competition is driven by profit)
○ Recognition
○ Monetary satisfaction
■ Pharma usually register what they produce (ROI)

● VOLVO FREE PATENTED THE SEATBELT

○ They saved millions of lives
● This is hard to patent
○ Takes longer time to come up with a knowledge
○ Took decades to make fundamental knowledge to chemistry

● It takes a lot of time

○ Why researchers do short-cut. You should do research in a short time thus
limiting type of topics you can engage into
○ The greater research you can do, the more funding you can do
○ Because of pressure of deadline, people do short-cut in gathering data
○ Scientists will not survive now, because in the psat, their research takes years.
■ Everything must be done in an instant
■ Its like a factory
■ These damages science
● Workers are forced to imply productions of research
○ It’s either you publish or perish here in the university otherwise you job won’t be
secured or you will be ousted from your position.
○ You have to fit to the liking of a publication journal
■ In order to legitamize yung work mo, you have to publish in a legitimize
journal.
■ If you want your article to be published, you have to understand you have
to comply to what is essential in the journal institution/organization
● Otherwise if youre study doesnt fit their theme, the study won;t be
publish. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT PROFIT .

● They measure capacity of students through tests so the university can sell itself to
applicants
○ Like DLSU that is a business school.
■ EX. we have good accountancy
● Funding is limited
● Instead of individuals collaborating in the same topic, they compete with each other.
● Competition does not accelerate innovation

● Anarchy
● Resources should be fully shared

● Scene is a social endeavor

 ● From different fields, research should be done in a collaborative manner is better

Mechanics of Oral exam

1. First 15 people will taking the exam

Questions kay ms
Hi po Ms! i just wanted to ask some questions regarding the exam :)
1. How many questions will be there? - 3 questions
2. Will coverage be from module 1 to 2?

Those will be let in

In this chapter we have argued that global research and ethical standards of
pharmaceutical development – especially in global clinical trials—are institutionalized,
disrupted and/or shaped by nation states and international bodies, local and global
cultures, and multinational pharmaceutical firms. The standard pharmaceuticalization
and modernist framework uses one of two possible narratives about why and how clinical
trials and ethical practices have become standardized. In the first narrative, the institution
of medicine in conjunction with international regulatory bodies successfully developed
and adopted scientific and ethical frameworks for the conduct of clinical trials globally.
The result is better, well-designed, portable, and ethical scientific research and
pharmaceutical products. The second explanation suggests an alternative result, that
global bodies are being exploited by the capitalistic expansion of pharmaceutical
companies into the global South in the pursuit of cheaper trials and an undermedicalized
surplus army of available bodies.

Key Points:

Institutional Influences: The chapter examines how global research and ethical standards in
pharmaceutical development are influenced by various entities, including nation states,
international bodies, local and global cultures, and multinational pharmaceutical firms.

Narratives on Standardization: Two narratives are presented regarding the standardization of

clinical trials and ethical practices.

● The first narrative highlights the collaborative efforts of the medical institution and
international regulatory bodies in developing and implementing scientific and ethical
frameworks for global clinical trials. This narrative suggests that such standardization
leads to improved, well-designed, portable, and ethical research outcomes and
pharmaceutical products.
● The second narrative proposes an alternative view, suggesting that global bodies are
exploited by pharmaceutical companies for capitalistic expansion, particularly into
regions of the global South. This pursuit aims at conducting cheaper trials and
capitalizing on an undermedicalized surplus population.
○ For instance, the company might choose to conduct trials in a developing
country where there may be a lack of comprehensive healthcare infrastructure
and a population with limited access to medical services. In this scenario, the
company could potentially exploit the vulnerability of the population by offering
minimal compensation for participation in trials or providing inadequate
healthcare beyond the scope of the trial itself.
○ Ex. sweatshops

Implications of Narratives: These narratives offer contrasting perspectives on the

consequences of global standardization efforts.

The first narrative implies positive outcomes such as enhanced scientific rigor, ethical
conduct, and accessibility of pharmaceutical products.
The second narrative raises concerns about exploitation, particularly in economically
disadvantaged regions, leading to ethical dilemmas and potential inequalities in access to
 healthcare.
Complex Interplay: The chapter highlights the intricate interplay between various actors and
factors in shaping global research and ethical standards. It underscores the dynamic nature of
these standards, which are subject to institutionalization, disruption, and reshaping by multiple
stakeholders.

But neither of these modernist frames fully captures what is going on with global
pharmaceutical trials. Ultimately, the outcomes of the clinical trial process internationally
do not fit standard modernist narratives of either exploitation or the ethical advance of
scientific research. A modern perspective on global clinical trials employs an either/or
analysis. Global clinical trials can also be seen through a postmodern framework that
captures the uneven and contradictory character of pharmaceutical trials occurring
throughout the world. We show that bodies used in clinical trials may or may not ever
benefit from pharmaceutical development and may or may not be exploited during and
after the trials conclude. A postmodern perspective enables a more subtle analysis:
pharmaceutical and clinical trial innovations are made possible by and at the same time
foster major shifts in the global political economy. This ambiguity is especially apparent
in the pharmaceuticalization process. Global pharmaceutical trials and ethical research

Key Points:

● Critique of Modernist Frames: The chapter challenges the adequacy of standard

modernist narratives in understanding global pharmaceutical trials. Neither the
narrative of exploitation nor the narrative of ethical advancement fully captures the
complex dynamics at play.

● Postmodern Framework: Instead of adhering to a simplistic either/or analysis, the

chapter advocates for a postmodern perspective that acknowledges the uneven and
contradictory nature of pharmaceutical trials worldwide. This framework allows for a
more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted outcomes and implications of clinical
trials.

● Ambiguity and Contradictions: The postmodern perspective emphasizes the

ambiguity surrounding the outcomes of pharmaceutical trials. It recognizes that trial
participants may or may not benefit from pharmaceutical development, and they may
or may not be exploited during and after the trials. This ambiguity highlights the
complexities inherent in the pharmaceuticalization process.
○ May not benefit from vaccine

● Global Political Economy: The chapter highlights how pharmaceutical and clinical
trial innovations both shape and are shaped by major shifts in the global political
 economy. This interconnectedness underscores the need to consider broader
socio-economic factors in analyzing pharmaceutical trials and ethical research
practices.

standardization are complex, global, and multi-sited and involve remaking the technical,
organizational, and institutional infrastructures of the life sciences and biomedicine. The
pharmaceutical transformation of life and approach to public health is associated with a
new, postmodern, era in medicine and society more broadly.
To support our argument, we analyzed two cases: Sunder Rajan’s study of clinical
trials in India and Petty and Heimer’s study of global clinical research in HIV clinics.
Both of these cases explain how local circumstances help to make sense of
pharmaceuticalization and the pharmaceuticalization of public health and both cases are
better explained by a more postmodern than a modern frame. Sunder Rajan shows that
the particular history of the pharmaceutical industry in India, Indian CROs, and labor
exploitation, are explanatory "forces" that have led to India's desire to be a location for
clinical trials. In spite of the fact that most Indians may not benefit directly from
pharmaceutical research, some poor and illiterate Indians do gain access to clinical trials
after informed consent is carefully administered to them. Using Sunder Rajan’s case of
India, we conclude that a modernist explanation of either economic exploitation or
benefit does not go far enough.

In the second case we show that the global expansion of clinical trials works
unevenly throughout the world and further that in some respects clinics in "poorer"
countries benefit more from these trials than do clinics in "richer" countries. For example,
Petty and Heimer document how an unintended consequence of participating in global
clinical HIV trials for those in poor countries is the reconfiguration of their organizational
and medical practices. An additional consequence is the pharmaceuticalization of public
health even though it may be a more expensive strategy. Through their participation in clinical
trials, clinics create a regulatory, clinical and institutional apparatus that fosters a
pharmaceutical approach to HIV. As they write: “… the costs of new pharmaceuticals
can easily overwhelm the healthcare systems of poor countries, when investing in the
lower-end of healthcare would surely be wiser” (Petty and Heimer 2011: 357). Public
health becomes pharmaceuticalized with significantly different procedures and
consequences. The contradictions, reversals, and production of new subjectivities such as
pharmaceutical citizenship or reconfigured clinics are better explained by a postmodern
than a modern theory of pharmaceuticals.

Key Points:
 Uneven Global Expansion: The chapter highlights the uneven distribution of benefits and
consequences associated with the global expansion of clinical trials. Contrary to common
assumptions, clinics in "poorer" countries may actually benefit more from participation in these
trials compared to clinics in "richer" countries.

Case Example - Clinical HIV Trials: Petty and Heimer's research on global clinical HIV trials
illustrates how participation in such trials leads to unintended consequences, particularly in
poorer countries. These consequences include the reconfiguration of organizational and
medical practices within clinics.

Pharmaceuticalization of Public Health: An unintended consequence of participating in global

clinical trials is the pharmaceuticalization of public health, even though it may be a more
expensive strategy. Clinics involved in trials create a regulatory, clinical, and institutional
framework that promotes a pharmaceutical approach to addressing health issues like HIV.

Contradictions and New Subjectivities: The chapter emphasizes the contradictions, reversals,
and emergence of new subjectivities, such as pharmaceutical citizenship or reconfigured
clinics, resulting from participation in global clinical trials. These phenomena are better
understood through a postmodern framework than through traditional modern theories of
pharmaceuticals.

Finally, both of these cases show that while in theory the call for global ethical
research standards appears to be a modern and scientific way forward, in reality the
implementation of these standards is not “standard” and not always beneficial to clinics
and patients in poor countries. Clinics or countries encourage and produce
“workarounds” in their efforts to conform to standards. Distinctions such as ethical
variability versus standardization—and the modernist assumptions and interpretations of
their effects--fail to capture some of the surprising ways in which standards and
variability shape the experiences of people in very different parts of the world who are
part of a global pharmaceutical system, and thus modernist approaches do not help us
fully comprehend the dynamics of global health inequality.

=====================================================================

Key points for review:

Outsourcing of clinical trials: There has been a significant increase in the outsourcing of clinical
trials by American pharmaceutical companies to foreign countries. The number of trials
conducted outside the United States has surged, with a substantial proportion of drug
applications to the FDA containing data from foreign trials.

Motivations for outsourcing: Companies find it appealing to conduct trials overseas due to lower
costs, easier recruitment of patients, and less stringent regulations. Factors such as poverty,
lack of regulation, and limited access to healthcare contribute to the attractiveness of foreign
locations for conducting trials.

Concerns and criticisms: Some medical researchers question the relevance of clinical trial
results from certain countries to Americans, citing differences in drug metabolism and prevalent
diseases. Ethical concerns arise regarding the informed consent process, with instances of
illiterate participants signing consent forms with thumbprints.

Global distribution of trials: Clinical trials are conducted in a wide range of countries, including
those with large populations of impoverished and illiterate individuals. Countries like China and
India have become major hubs for clinical trials, surpassing even Europe and the United States
in trial numbers.

Overall, the outsourcing of clinical trials to foreign countries presents both opportunities and
challenges, raising questions about the ethical implications, relevance of results, and disparities
in healthcare access and regulation across different regions.