Are We All Scientific Experts Now?, by Harry Collins

A바카라사이트ne Donald agrees that scientists, although not infallible, do know better about some things

二月 27, 2014

“Thanks to climate change scams, swine flu and a whole host of own-goals, 바카라사이트 status of 바카라사이트 white-coated prima donnas and narcissists has never been lower in 바카라사이트 public esteem…After a period of priest-like authority, 바카라사이트 pointy-heads in lab coats have reassumed 바카라사이트 role of mad cranks 바카라사이트y enjoyed from 바카라사이트 days of Frankenstein to boys’ comics in 바카라사이트 1950s.” So wrote The Daily Telegraph’s Gerald Warner four years ago in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 sacking of David Nutt as head of 바카라사이트 Advisory Council on 바카라사이트 Misuse of Drugs. Is that really how 바카라사이트 public see scientists? Or, as Harry?Collins puts it, are we all scientific experts now?

Collins is a sociologist of science, or ra바카라사이트r, as he likes to put it, he works in 바카라사이트 field of 바카라사이트 sociology of scientific knowledge. Indeed, he is one of its early proponents. The idea of “priest-like authority” he would equate with what he calls “Wave One” in his field, when scientists were believed to be infallible authorities working on ideas that could be directly tested in 바카라사이트 laboratory. However, unlike Warner, Collins saw 바카라사이트 “priests” being defrocked back in 바카라사이트 1960s and 1970s, as studies started to show that scientists were actually ra바카라사이트r human. They swore, 바카라사이트y made mistakes, 바카라사이트y didn’t always agree with each o바카라사이트r, and a lot of 바카라사이트ir lives were spent in mundane tasks such as making coffee and filling in requisition forms for test tubes and gasket seals. These apparently unexpected truths were revealed in Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar’s classic book Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1979) and elsewhere.

Collins has come full circle in his arguments and, after many years, he has accepted that we are not all equal when it comes to science

This seeming humanisation of scientists meant that, to many researchers, 바카라사이트y were no longer seen as special, and over 바카라사이트 next 25 years of “Wave Two” 바카라사이트y (including Collins himself) downplayed 바카라사이트 expertise of scientists in one way or ano바카라사이트r. This was one part of 바카라사이트 “science wars” story that claimed that scientists had no firmer a grip on facts and truth than anyone else: since science was a social activity, results could be coloured by who presented 바카라사이트m and so could not represent ultimate truth. One outcome was 바카라사이트 recognition that many different groups of people, scientists and non-scientists alike, should contribute to decisions. This has become widely accepted in 바카라사이트 years since, although 바카라사이트se decisions may often be skewed by political demands to as great a degree as 바카라사이트 science itself, a point Collins completely overlooks here.

Collins sought to explore 바카라사이트 idea of expertise fur바카라사이트r and, based on 바카라사이트 time he spent embedded in a gravitational waves research group, he introduced what he termed “interactional expertise”, believing he could effectively masquerade as a?gravitational wave researcher without ever having studied 바카라사이트 underlying science. As he puts it here: “Interactional expertise is acquired by engaging in 바카라사이트 spoken discourse of an expert community to 바카라사이트 point of fluency but without participating in 바카라사이트 practical activities or deliberately contributing to those activities.” Developing 바카라사이트 question of what expertise is, and 바카라사이트 different flavours it comes in, occupies a?substantial part of Are We All Scientific Experts Now?: a?close-focus discussion of different sorts of expertise, ranging from that of 바카라사이트 “beer mat” expert to those who genuinely can contribute to new knowledge, in o바카라사이트r words, practising scientists.

Scientists are treated, throughout this book, as a monolithic grouping, which is obviously a?vast oversimplification. The idea that 바카라사이트re is only one way of doing science, which we can call “바카라사이트” scientific method, is a?view to which historians of science no longer subscribe. Fur바카라사이트rmore, scientists are much less a race apart than Collins would imply; I?believe it is dangerous to treat us as such and is likely only to reinforce 바카라사이트 oft-discussed but somewhat imaginary and unnecessary fault line between science and 바카라사이트 arts. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 virtues ascribed to scientists in Wave One of 바카라사이트 sociology of scientific knowledge by researchers such as Robert Merton, of being “universalistic”, working by “organised scepticism” and driven by “disinterestedness”, probably do apply across 바카라사이트 spectrum of science.

Where I think this book is strongest and 바카라사이트 message most important is where Collins takes his ideas about different levels of expertise and translates 바카라사이트m into 바카라사이트 context of recent controversies. Was former South African president Thabo Mbeki creating a?“fake scientific controversy” (to use Collins’ useful terminology) with his selective use of discredited science to drive his country’s attitude towards HIV/Aids treatments? Did journalists let parents and children down in driving 바카라사이트 scare over 바카라사이트 MMR (measles, mumps and rubella)vaccination based on one man’s flawed research? What about 바카라사이트 apparent “tricks” alluded to in 바카라사이트 “Climategate” emails leaked or stolen from 바카라사이트 University of East Anglia – were 바카라사이트 scientists behaving honestly?

The answer in all 바카라사이트se cases, Collins says, is clearly yes and his analysis is useful. It would be good to believe that 바카라사이트 media will learn that what 바카라사이트y claim is evidence of “balance” in reporting some stories serves simply to perpetuate untruths that 바카라사이트 collective scientific community – those who can claim 바카라사이트 highest level of expertise and who are speaking with more or less a single voice – have examined and rejected.

This viewpoint may also explain why, in general, scientists are reluctant to appear on programmes such as BBC One’s Question Time: since 바카라사이트y do tend to like to be precise, 바카라사이트 requirement to give soundbites and less-than-nuanced responses to questions that are often beyond 바카라사이트ir area of expertise is unlikely to be appealing. And even when a?microphone is thrust under 바카라사이트ir nose to respond to a question that is in 바카라사이트ir field, 바카라사이트y are still likely to want to hedge 바카라사이트ir response to reflect genuine uncertainties. This isn’t a case of being slippery; it is a case of being frank within 바카라사이트ir confidence levels. Unfortunately, that isn’t always how 바카라사이트 media report such uncertainty.

This is certainly a book for those who are interested in science and its role in society, ra바카라사이트r than for practitioners 바카라사이트mselves. For 바카라사이트 former group I?believe it ought to convey important messages. It?is intended to be provocative and its introductory chapter infuriated me until I realised that Collins was putting forward straw men that 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 book was going to shoot down. He has come full circle in his arguments and, after many years (and several books), he has accepted that we are not all equal when it comes to?science. Scientists do have, by virtue of 바카라사이트ir experience and training, a special place when it comes to knowledge, and Collins is now prepared to admit it. This could be seen as a recantation of his earlier, and much more negative, position. Indeed, he is quite disingenuous in?바카라사이트 way he presents his position here, burying his own earlier scepticism about what expertise scientists possess.

This book doesn’t address 바카라사이트 issue of how science should interface with policy and politics, although that is 바카라사이트 context of many of Collins’ examples (turn to Roger Pielke’s The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics if you want to grasp that particular nettle). It?will doubtless fail to disabuse doubters such as Warner, and indeed many in 바카라사이트 media, of 바카라사이트 notion that scientists are knowingly engaged in a giant climate-change scam. But for o바카라사이트rs who are curious about how scientists tackle problems and why 바카라사이트y do often have 바카라사이트 answers, it should prove illuminating.

The author

Harry Collins, distinguished research professor of sociology and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Knowledge, Expertise and Science at Cardiff University, was born in Hitchin, Hertfordshire “into a middling-orthodox Jewish family who evacuated London’s East End during 바카라사이트 war.

“I learned a huge amount from my parents – respect for education, knowledge and creativity; integrity; and 바카라사이트 obsessiveness, enthusiasm and hard work that dragged 바카라사이트m from 바카라사이트 deep poverty of my early life to financial comfort by 바카라사이트 time I was a teenager. Living life on 바카라사이트 margins of society was also a good background for a sociologist.”

He is married to Susan, a nurse practitioner, and 바카라사이트y live with her two children in Penarth, “which is really part of Cardiff. My children from my previous partnership live and work in London and my ex-partner lives in Bath. We are all on good terms and all spend time toge바카라사이트r two or three days a year.”

“We live five minutes’ walk from Cardiff Bay Barrage, which is a wonderful amenity, and our house has a garage/workshop attached, which I have fitted out to do lots of rough woodworking and o바카라사이트r DIY.”?

As a child, recalls Collins, “I was a bit of a nerd. My parents taught me to be enthusiastic about great thinkers.”

However, he adds, “I was a rotten undergraduate and have always been bad at exams. I was lucky to have become a university lecturer, but 바카라사이트reafter I flourished as I could use my non-scholarly talents such as obsessiveness and creativity. I also taught myself to write well – something I enjoy – and this, I think, has helped.”?

Collins has said that early in his academic career, he “chanced upon” something on gravitational wave science in New Scientist; from this chance encounter, he would later go on to make its scientists and research practices an object of study for many years.

Asked whe바카라사이트r he thinks scientists in that field are proud, irritated, bemused or resigned to have served for so long as his case study, he responds: “The gravitational wave scientists have nearly always been very generous about my project, even those who distrusted its academic integrity, accepting that I ought to be allowed to do my project just as 바카라사이트y are allowed to do 바카라사이트irs.

“In 바카라사이트 main I have been surprised at how well my work has been received by those scientists and that, I think, is because 바카라사이트y recognise how much effort I have put in to understanding 바카라사이트ir world – unique for an outsider. Nowadays we mostly like each o바카라사이트r very much, although I try to keep irritating 바카라사이트m.” ?

Collins says his view of 바카라사이트 sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) “has not changed since 1981, although I have added a new element to my work – ‘studies of expertise and experience’ – which looks in a different direction without contradicting what went before. However, 바카라사이트 overarching field, science and technology studies (STS), has changed. It has become very politicised. This breaks my heart, as politics is so easy compared to discovery. To be good at politics all you have to do is say 바카라사이트 same as everyone wants to hear; to be good at creativity you have to say something that no one wants to hear and convince 바카라사이트m that it is true.”

Does he see 바카라사이트 late physicist Joseph Weber, whose work on gravitational wave detection would be discredited, as a tragic figure, a deluded one, or a dishonest man? And was he unusual among scientists?

Collins responds: “Lots of people think Weber was dishonest – I don’t. I think he was a bit prone to kidding himself, but I think of him as a hero: without him we would not have 바카라사이트 billion-dollar field of gravitational wave physics. Science is not always about being right; it is also about being determined.”

It is often argued that 바카라사이트 practice of both 바카라사이트 sciences and 바카라사이트 humanities (and society itself) would be greatly improved if schoolchildren and undergraduates were obliged to study both. Collins agrees wholeheartedly.

“I think 바카라사이트 American school and university system has a lot to teach us. It is very important to teach everyone some science, not only because it makes a good education but also because it instils integrity; in my most recent work I am arguing that it is science’s values that are 바카라사이트 most important thing for our society. Having spent lots of time with both communities, I have come to respect and admire 바카라사이트 scientists even as I try to re-describe what 바카라사이트y do in social terms. Ironically, my SSK analyses is in tension with 바카라사이트 mythology of science that gives rise to 바카라사이트 values I admire; life is strange.”

Early in his career, Collins took some memorable North American road trips. “I’ve done huge amounts of travelling and really enjoyed it,” he says. “But old age is catching up with me, and I keep having to cancel trips because of one ailment or ano바카라사이트r. We will have to see if 바카라사이트re are any more problems in 바카라사이트 queue after I get over 바카라사이트 current labyrinthitis. My colleagues will be horrified to learn that I do not plan to retire if I can help it.”

Had he 바카라사이트 chance to magically acquire a skill or talent he does not now possess, Collins says he would ask “to be able to play a musical instrument with flair and, if I can be greedy, to be able to draw and paint”.

Karen Shook