Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:13:36.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science Abused? Challenging a Legend

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Peter Weingart
Peter Weingart
Affiliation:
Science Studies Center and Department of SociologyUniversity of Bielefeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The thesis of the paper is that there is no “abuse” of science as suggested by the legend of Galileo but only a mutual opportunism characterizing the relation between science and politics.

Any scientific research depends on the accessibility of its subject matter, plus material resources. The absence of internal constraints, the hunger for novelty, translate into a powerful drive to secure both. The coupling between science and politics in our time is based on a mutual dependence: resources and accessibility are exchanged for solutions to problems and legitimation.

Scientific disciplines are highly sensitive to their environments with respect to the possibilities of extending their power of definition and of thereby obtaining resources. The ability of the sciences to expand their power of definition depends on the political “context of relevance.” The context, such as a socialist or fascist ideology, selects against certain sciences. But for a government to be able to favor one school at the expense of another there have to be competing factions within science, and their conflict has to be to some extent unresolved.

Modern democratic systems differ from totalitarian ones insofar as their interest in science is ideologically vague and primarily economic in nature. This does not mean that the same mechanisms of mutual utilization do not operate.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1993 , pp. 555 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beatty, J. Forthcoming. “Genetics in the Atomic Age: The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, 1947–1956.” In The Expansion of American Biology, edited by Rainger, R. et al. .Google Scholar
Beyerchen, A. D. 1977. Scientisis under Hitler. New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Boskin, J., and Krinsky, F., eds. 1968. The Oppenheimer Affair. A Political Play in Three Acts. Beverly Hills, Calif.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., ed. 1981. “Knowledge and Controversy: Studies of Modern Natural Science.” In Social Studies of Science, special issue, 11(1).Google Scholar
de Santillana, G. [1955] 1959. The Crime of Galileo. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
de Santillana, G. [1957] 1968. “Galileo and J. Robert Oppenheimer.” The Reporter, December 26:10–18. Reprinted in part in Boskin and Krinsky [1957] 1968, 125–34.Google Scholar
Geuter, U. 1984. Die Professionalisierung der deutschen Psychologie im Nationalsozialismus. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Graham, L., forthcoming. The New Rature-Nurture Controversy in the Soviet Union. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hermann, A. 1982. Wie die Wissenschaft ihre Unschuld verlor — MacHi und Missbrauch der Forscher. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Köhn-Behrens, C. 1934. Was ist Rasse? Gespräch mit den grössien deutschen Forschern der Gegenwart. Munich.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. 1990. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Lundgreen, P., ed. 1985. Wissenschafi im Dritten Reich. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Martin, R. M. 1986. “Using Nazi Scientific Data.” Dialogue 25(3):403–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medvedev, Zhores A. 1969. The Rise and Fall of Lysenko. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrtens, H., and Richter, S., eds. 1980. Naturwissenschafi, Technik und NS-Ideologie. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1957. Science and Democratic Social Structure. New York.Google Scholar
Muller, Herman J. 1945. “Progress and Prospects in Human Genetics.” American Journalfor Human Genetics 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Müller-Hill, B. 1984. Tödliche Wissenschafz. Reinbek.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. J. 1979. “Normal Explanations of the Paranormal: The Demarcation Problem and Fraud in Parapsychology.” In Social Studies of Science 9(3):329–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poliakov, L., and Wulf, J. 1959. Das Dritte Reich und seine Denker. Berlin-Grunewald.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. N. 1988. Racial Hygiene—Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Provine, W. B. 1973. “Geneticists and the Biology of Race Crossing.” Science 182:790–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rammstedt, O. 1986. Deutsche Soziologie 1933–1945. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
von Laue, Max. 1961. Gesammelte Schriften und Vorträge. Braunschweig.Google Scholar
Weingart, P. 1988. “Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Science and the Context of Relevance.” Poetics Today 9(1):43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, P. 1988. 1989. “German Eugenics between Science and Politics.” Osiris, 2nd series 5:260–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, P. et al. 1988. Rasse, Blut und Gene. Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland. Frankfurt:Google Scholar