1. Autonomous science, science for
and science with the public
Exploring three ideals of the relationship between science and society
Mélissa Lieutenant-Gosselin, Ph. D. candidate, Public communication, Université Laval (Québec)
4S 40th Annual Meeting, Denver (Colorado)

2. • Shaken relationship between science and society
• Science institutions and scientists perceive(d) a public
desinterest or even distrust toward "science"
• Rising need to justify public support for science and to drive
economic vitality (knowledge economy)
• Reduced governmental support and rise of the industrial
partnership model
• Science institutions and ethos are shaken: science scandals
(false data, industrial influence, etc.), technoscience
catastrophes (nuclear accidents, medical disasters,
industrial and agricultural pollution, etc.)
• Social movements question the use of science, its
interactions with politics, its practices and its methodology

3. • But what are the problems and opportunities
associated with this turmoil?
• Different opinions
• My hypothesis : these differences stem from different
understandings of science and democracy
• I suggest 3 consistent ideal types that summarize
frequent positions of scientists and “critics of
science”
• Autonomous science
• Science for the public
• Science with the public

4. Autonomous science
The “problem”
Science may be subverted by external – political,
economical – influences. In this context, truth-finding is
made more difficult, even impossible.
Michel Polanyi. 1962. The Republic of Science: Its
Political and Economic Theory, p. 56. Science as a free
market:
Any attempt to organise the group of helpers
[scientists who collaborate freely] under a single
authority would eliminate their independent
initiatives and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to
that of the single person directing them from the
centre.

5. Autonomous science
Threats to science
• Politicization (including citizen influence)
• Commodification (including all utilitarian demands)

6. Autonomous science
Knowledge and science conception
• There is ONE reality which can be discovered
• In order for this to happen, scientists must be protected
from external influences, including their own values by
their methods, by the academic independence, by the
support of fundamental and disciplinary-oriented
research.
• Any interference is detrimental

8. Autonomous science
Democracy in this perspective
• Science unveils reality which allows democratic societies
to make better decisions.
• Science = truth = human progress
• Science is historically and philosophically linked to
representative democracy but remains external to
democracy (in its own Republic…) (Brown, 2009).
• Both depend on division of labor: the intellectual elite uncovers
reality (the scientists) and makes decisions accordingly (the
politicians); the people choose their leaders.
• Both are technocratic.

10. Autonomous science
Citizens' entitlements
• Benefit from the knowledge produced by scientists
Driving principles of the science-society
relationship
• Education, popularization, access to knowledge

11. Science for the public
The “problem”
• The actual practices of science have sometimes strong
deleterious impacts (on people, animals, and the
environment).
• Science (and technologies) could and should be more
beneficial (less detrimental).
Environmental and ethical discourses often relate to this
view.

12. Science for the public
Threats to science
• Technocracy regarding orientation and application
• Lack of transparency
• Partisanship (rather than politicization)
• Commodification (for/with the industries)

13. Science for the public
Knowledge and science conception
• Whether or not there is a single reality, there are
different ways of doing science and of using it with
different effects.
• Science guidance is necessary, but usually limited to the
applications or the choice of broad research directions or
objects (GMOs, Nano, embryonic stem cells…).
• It is sometimes useful to incorporate lay knowledge into
science knowledge production, and social values must be
considered.

17. Science for the public
Democracy in this perspective
• Extension of the representative democracy system to
science: the people choose the objectives (and restrict
the means), the political and intellectual elites choose
the means.
• The citizens also carry out important counter-democracy
practices: surveillance, prevention, and judgement.
(Pierre Rosanvallon. 2006. La contre-démocratie. La politique à l’âge de la
défiance. Éditions du Seuil, 345 p.
English translation: Counter-democracy : politics in an age of distrust,
Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008, 348 p.)

18. Counter-democracy
“By “counter-democracy” I mean not the opposite of democracy but
rather a form of democracy that reinforces the usual electoral
democracy as a kind of buttress, a democracy of indirect powers
disseminated throughout society – in other words, a durable
democracy of distrust, which complements the episodic democracy of
the usual electoral-representative system. Thus counter-democracy is
part of a larger system that also includes legal democratic institutions
and extend their influence, to shore them up.” (Rosanvallon, 2010, 8).
“Rosanvallon argues that […] the vitality of democracy rests equally on
forms of “counter-democracy” through which citizens dissent, protest,
and exert pressure from without on the democratic state.” (Isaac, cited
in Schmitter, 2010)

19. Science for the public
Citizens' entitlements
• Choose the purposes of science, guide its evolution
according to its effects.
• Watch, prevent and judge.
Driving principles of the science-society
relationship
• Surveillance, precautionary principle, accountability,
access to knowledge and data.

20. Science with the public
The “problem”
The dominant model of science is unjust: science needs to
be more inclusive.
• Exclusionary (elitist authority) (Guston, 1993)
• Intellectual colonialism (Fourez, 2002)
• Standardizing -- even for the people (Stengers, 1997)
• Rhetoric of social distance that leads to unaccountability (Brown,
2009)
• Or even the construction of a denying community (Salomon,
2006)
• There is a profound cognitive injustice regarding other ways of
making sense of the world (de Sousa Santos , 2007; Visvanathan ,
2009)

21. Science with the public
Threats to science
• Elitism
• Technocracy
• Lack of transparency
• Instrumentalisation
• Commodification
• Intellectual colonialism
• Overestimation of scientific knowledge, institution,
expertise (lack of humility)

23. Science with the public
Knowledge and science conception
• Whether or not there is a single reality, humans only
have access to the constructs they make.
• These constructs are imperfect, and historically and
socially embedded. Often they favor the established
powers.
• For these to be fair (just) – and according to some,
efficient – they must be constructed by all.
• Or (and) must allow and value the existence of other
constructs from other contexts.

24. Science with the public
Democracy in this perspective
• Favours citizens’ direct participation at all stages
(participatory democracy). The idea of dialogue is also
very often at the heart of the advocated practices
(deliberative democracy).

25. Science with the public
Citizens' entitlements
• All may participate in knowledge production and uses, all
have their say on scientific practices.
Driving principles of the science-society
relationship
• Equality, empowerment, plurality

26. In a nutshell
Autonomous science = science as an independent and
idealistic quest
• Science as an outside institution reserved to scientificly
educated people using the scientific method. Science serves
democracy by unveiling reality.
Science for the public = science as a tool for better life
• Scientific practices and its different uses could have
deleterious impacts on societies. Societies should be able to
influence its orientations and prevent particular research
projects.
Science with the public = science as a cultural project
• Science must be open to citizens’ participation, demands,
critiques and ways of knowing, and value other knowledge
systems (cosmologies).

27. What about Open Science?
Aims to develop a theoretical concept and a praxis for the
Science with the public view. A set of values, tools and
practices of scientific inquiry including:
1) Open Access to scientific publications and data;
2) Participation of non-academics in the research process,
for example via infrastructures enabling civil society
organizations to assert their own research priorities,
and to coproduce knowledge (science shops, science
hacking, collaborative research…);
3) An opening of science to a wider range of knowledges –
practical or traditional, for instance. And a respect for
the other ways of making sense of the world. (humility)

28. What about Open Science?
1) Open Access: Also compatible with Autonomous
science (free flow of knowledge among the scientific
community) and Science for the public (transparency,
increased utility and benefits).
2) Participation of non-academics: Also compatible with
Science for the public when it concerns science
orientations, science uses and some limitations to the
scientific inquiry.
3) Wider range of knowledge: partially compatible with
Science for the public (use of lay knowledge as a
complement to scientific knowledge).

29. What about Open Science?
Work to do:
- Inventory of practices (describing, analysing)
- Reflexivity on our own practices
- Construction of a coherent theoretical
framework
- Promotion, invention and exercise of alternative
practices and understandings of science
- Participatory action research, science shops,
collaborative research, research hacking
- Open and public diffusion

30. What about Open Science?
Asociación de Ciencias y el bien común /
Association for Science and Common Good
http://www.scienceetbiencommun.org/
Work together to describe and construct Open Science.
Mélissa Lieutenant-Gosselin
melissa.lieutenant-gosselin.1@ulaval.ca

31. References
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy. Expertise, Institutions, and
Representation. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 354 p.
de Sousa Santos, Boaventura (ed.). 2007. Another knowledge is possible:
beyond northern epistemologies. Verso, 447 p.
Fourez, Gérard. 2002. La construction des sciences. Les logiques des inventions
scientifiques, 4e édition augmentée. De Boeck Université, 382 p.
Guston, David. 1993. « The essential tension in science and democracy ».
Social epistemology, 7(1) : 3-23.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2006. La contre-démocratie. La politique à l’âge de la
défiance. Éditions du Seuil, 345 p. / 2008. Counter-democracy : politics in an
age of distrust. Cambridge University Press, New York, 348 p.
Salomon, Jean-Jacques. 2006. Les Scientifiques : Entre savoir et pouvoir. Paris :
Albin Michel, 435 p.
Stengers, Isabelle. 1997. Sciences et pouvoirs. La démocratie face à la
technoscience. Paris : Éditions la découverte, 120 p.
Visvanathan, Shiv. 2009. The Search for Cognitive Justice. http://www.india-
seminar.com/2009/597/597_shiv_visvanathan.htm