Are Public Controversies an Eradicable Evil or an Inevitable Good? Exploring the Dynamics of the Science-society Relationship from a Social Constructivist and Actor-network Perspective

The last half century has brought great changes to the science-society relationship. Unconditional acceptance of scientific expertise has been replaced by challenges to scientific authority and public socio-technical controversies. Social researchers have made efforts to understand the tensions in science and society relationship, trying find ways to resolve them. These efforts have broadly contributed to transformations in science and technology policy that got underway at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. However, controversies have not faded into the past. In this article, the author provides a comparative analysis of the explanations of the above-mentioned dynamics of the science-society relationship in social constructivism and actor-network theory. The explanation of social constructivism is the most accredited perspective in Public Engagement with Science (PES) and science communication studies. It considers the dynamics of the science-society relationship by appealing to the local social identities of heterogeneous publics and their expertise, opposed to institutionalized assumptions of science. This perspective formed the basis of the dialogue model which is the primary reference point for modern science communication. In contrast, the explanation provided by actor-network theory, which highlights a deepening crisis of the division between specialists and non-specialists, remains, rather, on the periphery of scholarly attention. To introduce the approaches, the author refers to the key works of Michel Callon and Brian Wynne. The comparison is arranged around three main lines: 1) what are the reasons for challenging scientific authority and the emergence of public controversies; 2) how science and technology policy should be built; 3) what role social scientists play in the dynamics of the science-society relationship. By contrasting the arguments of the two approaches, it is demonstrated that scholarly disregard of actornetwork theory in PES and science communication studies is unmerited, as it has potential for addressing and resolving the major issues in these domains.

1. Callon M., Méadel C., Rabeharisoa V. (2008) The economy of qualities. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 11(4): 59-87. — in Russ.

2. Kuznetsov A. G. (2020) Neural Network Nebulaе: “Black Boxes” of Technologies and Object-Lessons From Opacities of Algorithms. Sociology of Power, 32(2): 157-182. — in Russ.

3. Kuznetsov A. G., Rudenko N. I. (2021) How to explain technological accidents? The «Human Factor», Social Constructivism and the Ontological Turn in Exploring the Uncertainties of Autonomous Vehicles. Sociology of Power, 33 (4): 97-146. — in Russ.

4. Bauer M. W., Falade B. A. (2014) Public understanding of science: survey research around the world. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 140-159.

5. Bonvillian W. B., Weiss C. (2009) Taking covered wagons east: A new innovation 52 theory for energy and other established technology sectors. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 4(4): 289-300.

6. Borchelt R. E., Nielsen K. H. (2014) Public relations in science: managing the trust portfolio. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 5869.

7. Bucchi M., Trench B. (2014) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge. Bucchi M., Trench B. (2014) Science communication research: themes and challenges. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 1-14.

8. Bucchi M. (2004) Science in Society. An introduction to social studies of science, London & New York: Routledge.

9. Callon M., Lascoumes P., Barthe Y. (2011) Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy, Cambridge and London: MIT press.

10. Callon M. (1998) An essay on framing and overflowing: economic externalities revisited by sociology. The sociological review, 46(1): 244-269.

11. Callon M. (1997) Four models for the dynamics of science. A. I. Tauber (eds.). Science and the Quest for Reality. Main Trends of the Modern World, London: Palgrave Macmillan: 249-292.

12. Callon M., Rabeharisoa V. (2004) Gino’s lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and society, 33(1): 1-27.

13. Callon M., Law J., Rip A. (1986) How to study the force of science. M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (eds.) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and London: The Macmillan Press LTD: 3-15.

14. Callon M. (1998) Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics. The sociological review, 46(1): 1-57.

15. Callon M. (1994) Is science a public good? fifth mullins lecture, virginia polytechnic institute, 23 march 1993. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(4): 395-424.

16. Callon M., Rabeharisoa V. (2003) Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in society, 25(2): 193-204.

17. Callon M. (1987) Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, T. Pinch (eds.) The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 83-103.

18. Callon M. (1984) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The sociological review, 32(1): 196233.

19. Callon M., Rabeharisoa V. (2008) The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: Lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2): 230-261.

20. Callon M. (2003) The increasing involvement of concerned groups in R&D policies: what lessons for public powers? A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, W. E. Steinmueller (eds.) Science and Innovation. Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. New Horizons in the Economics of Innovation series, Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 30-68.

21. Callon M. (2004) The role of hybrid communities and socio-technical arrangements in the participatory design. Journal of the center for information studies, 5(3): 3-10.

22. Callon M. (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1): 81-94.

23. Carrion M. L. (2018) “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science, 27(3): 310-324.

24. Davies S. (2016) Participation as pleasure: citizenship and science communication. J. Chilvers, M. Kearnes (eds.) Remaking Participation. Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, London and New York: Routledge: 162-177.

25. Einsiedel E. (2014) Publics and their participation in science and technology: changing roles, blurring boundaries. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 125-139.

26. Engdahl E., Lidskog R. (2014) Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6): 703-717.

27. Fage-Butler A., Ledderer L., Nielsen K. H. (2022) Public trust and mistrust of climate science: A meta-narrative review. Public Understanding of Science, 31(7): 832-846.

28. Gregory J. (2015) Science Communication. J. D. Wright (eds.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Vol. 21, Elsevier: 219-224.

29. Gregory J., Miller S. (1998) Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility, New York: Basic Books.

30. Hess D. J., Coley J. S. (2014) Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: The environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6): 688-702.

31. Horst M., Davies S. R., Irwin A. (2017) Chapter 30. Reframing Science Communication. U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, L. Smith-Doerr (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th edition, Cambridge, London: The MIT Press: 881-907.

32. Irwin A., Wynne B. (1996) Conclusions. A. Irwin, B. Wynne (eds.) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33. Irwin A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public understanding of science, 10(1): 1-18.

34. Irwin A. (2014) Risk, science and public communication: third-order thinking about scientific culture. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 160-172.

35. Irwin A. (2015) Science, public engagement with. J. D. Wright (eds.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Vol. 21, Elsevier: 255-260.

36. Jasanoff S. (2004) Ordering knowledge, ordering society. S. Jasanoff (ed.) States of Knowledge. The co-production of science and social order, London and New York: Routledge: 13-45.

37. Kirby D. A. (2014) Science and technology in film: themes and representations.

38. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 97-112.

39. Latour B. (1983) Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. K. D. Knorr-Cetina, M. Mulkay (eds.) Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London, Beverly Hills, New Delhi: SAGE Publications: 141-170.

40. Meyer G. (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4): 433-446.

41. Miller S. (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1): 115-120.

42. Moore A., Stilgoe J. (2009) Experts and anecdotes: The role of “anecdotal evidence” in public scientific controversies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(5): 654-677.

43. Myers T. A., Kotcher J., Anderson A. A., Maibach E., Beall L., Leiserowitz A. (2017) Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies. Public Understanding of Science, 26(7): 843-860.

44. Neresini F., Pellegrini G. (2014) Assessing the impact of science communication: approaches to evaluation. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 231-245.

45. Nisbet M. C. (2014) Engaging in science policy controversies: insights from the US climate change debate. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 173-185.

46. Oreskes N. (2021(2019)) Why trust science? Princeton, Woodstock: Princeton University Press. Peters H. P. (2014) Scientists as public experts: expectations and responsibilities.

47. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 70-82.

48. Price C. (2023) Greenpeace and the online genetically modified food debate in the UK: The role of science and scientific evidence in “environmental representation”. Public Understanding of Science, 32(4): 489-503.

49. Public Understanding of Science Journal Homepage. SAGE Journals. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/PUS.

50. Rabeharisoa V., Callon M. (2004) Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. S. Jasanoff (eds.) States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and Social Order, London and New York: Routledge: 142-160.

51. Rabeharisoa V., Callon M., Filipe A. M., Nunes J. A., Paterson F., Vergnaud F. (2012) The dynamics of causes and conditions: the rareness of diseases in French and Portuguese patients’ organizations’ engagement in research. Papiers de Recherche du CSI CSI Working Papers Series (26), Paris: Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation Mines ParisTech.

52. Rabeharisoa V., Callon M. (2002) The involvement of patients’ associations in research. International Social Science Journal, 54(171): 57-63.

53. Rutjens B. T., Zarzeczna N., van der Lee R. (2022) Science rejection in Greece: Spirituality predicts vaccine scepticism and low faith in science in a Greek sample. Public Understanding of Science, 31(4): 428-436.

54. Shackley S., Wynne B. (1995) Global climate change: the mutual construction of an emergent science-policy domain. Science and Public Policy, 22(4): 218-230.

55. Silva E. O., Dick B., Flynn M. B. (2023) The evil corporation master frame: The cases of vaccines and genetic modification. Public Understanding of Science, 32(3): 340356.

56. Trench B. (2006) Science Communication and Citizen Science: How Dead is the Deficit Model? 9th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) Seoul, South Korea, 17-19 May, 2006.

57. Woolgar S., Pawluch D. (1985) How Shall We Move beyond Constructivism? Social Problems, 33 (2): 159–162.

58. Woolgar S. (1981) Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science. Social Studies of Science, 11(3): 365–94.

59. Wynne B. (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as culture, 10(4): 445-481.

60. Wynne B. (2014) Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1): 60-70.

61. Wynne B. (2015) Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and social science in a time of expert dogma and denial. J. Chilvers, M. Kearnes (eds.) Remaking Participation. Science, Environment and Emergent Publics, London and New York: Routledge: 99-120.

62. Wynne B. (1991) Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1): 111-121.

63. Wynne B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, B. Wynne (eds.) Risk, Environment & Modernity. Towards a New Ecology, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications: 44-83.

64. Wynne B. (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public understanding of science, 1(3): 281-304.

65. Wynne B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science– hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genomics, 9(3): 211-220.

66. Wynne B. (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1: 99-110.

67. Wynne B. (1992) Public understanding of science research: new horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1(1): 37-43.

68. Wynne B. (1993) Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2(4): 321-337.

69. Wynne B. (2013) Scientific knowledge and the global environment. M. Redclift, T. Benton (eds.) Social Theory and the Global Environment, London and New York: Routledge: 169-189.

70. Wynne B. (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 31(2): 10-39.

71. Wynne B. (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global environmental change, 2(2): 111-127

72. Yearley S. (2014) Environmentalists as communicators of science: advocates and critics. M. Bucchi, B. Trench (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition, London and New York: Routledge: 113-124.