Search

The topic of neutrality versus commitment within the sociology of scientific knowledge was the direct cause of the Special Issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." The set of papers as a whole embraces many aspects of the theme under discussion. In this brief Response, the author will focus on two central questions. The first is whether science and technology studies (STS) accounts should stick to descriptive analyses of the politics of science and technology, or whether they should also engage in normative criticisms, assessments or recommendations. It is concluded that a certain type of STS normativity is legitimate, and may constitute a specific contribution to political debates on science and technology. The second question concerns the realism-relativism issue. It is argued that this issue continues to integrate descriptively adequate and normatively engaged accounts of science and technology.

This article presents a brief response to the replies by Vicky Singleton and Brian Wynne. The author will base what he has to say on the original papers and his response to them, take account of the replies by Singleton and Wynne, and summarizes his main conclusions from the exchange. The two replies to the author's original response to the Special Issue of Social Studies of Science on "The Politics of SSK" carry on the debate in rather different ways. Hence, the author discusses them separately in this paper.

The article discusses normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology. Systematic and fundamental thinking on normative, or normatively relevant, questions is virtually absent in the highly influential constructivist studies of science and technology. The article after reviewing and assessing the role of normativity and reflexivity, in so far as it has been acknowledged within constructivism, presents a number of normative reflexions. Three general approaches--social constructivism, ethnography and actor-network theory--are analyzed in detail. The main themes of these analytical and critical reflexions are: missing issues, locality, relativism, the winner's perspective, and technoscientific success. It turns out that constructivist views concerning these themes have a number of normatively questionable consequences. These consequences can be avoided if certain constructivist assumptions, which are empirically unwarranted or unnecessary anyway, are rejected. Instead, some constructive alternatives are proposed for a social study of science and technology that is both empirically adequate and normatively satisfactory. These alternatives concern the significance of non-local patterns. They do not imply a return to the often simplistic, universal schemes that have been put forward so many times by philosophers of science and technology.

The paper starts with an analysis of similarities and differences between experimentation and technological production. It is argued that both imply an active intervention in nature and society, but that the cognitive and social aspects of experiment and technology may display considerable differences. The theoretical analysis is illustrated by means of examples taken, in particular, from the technology of nuclear energy production. Next, it is shown that, from the viewpoint of this paper, the technology conception prevailing in public debates on technology and in technology policy is inadequate; again, the case of nuclear energy serves as an example. Finally, it is concluded that scientific or technological knowledge and social power are intrinsically connected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]