Bibliography:
Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
Review by Michael Beach
Vannevar Bush was the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development for presidents Roosevelt and Truman. He was charged to write a vision for the United States of post World War II science and technology. There had been debate over how much or little US government and military participation (read funding and oversight) was necessary in the pending peace time. The result was a report published under the name Science, the Endless Frontier. The report made a number of overarching suggestions. These assertions included that science brings ‘indefinite benefit', and that research is best left ‘unfettered’. Bush also argued that the scientific community holds itself accountable given it’s processes, and such accountability then gives science trusted authoritativeness. He concludes that if all this effort were sufficiently funded and left alone, that knowledge produced through science represents a form of endless frontier that is ever-advancing.
Daniel Sarewitz wrote the book referenced in this review as a sort of critique to the Bush report. He frames each of Bush’s major points as ‘myths’. He links them with Thomas Kuhn's 'paradigm' concept. From that perspective, those engaged in 'normal science’ would naturally question those seeking to overthrow that paradigm. After arguing against each Bush-myth, Sarewitz proposes in several chapters that science is a sort of marketplace and a “surrogate for social action” (Sarewitz 1996, 141). He finished the book making the case for a “new mythology” (Sarewitz 1996, 169). In his version of science, he stresses five ‘policy suggestions’ in lieu of Vannevar Bush’s policies. Sarewitz calls for expanding diversity among the ranks of scientists and an integration of what he calls “the human element” (Sarewitz 1996, 173). He goes on to suggest the need for more “honest brokers” (Sarewitz 1996) in science as described by Roger Pielke in his book by that name.
Here’s a link to my review of Pielke’s book:
http://bhaven.org/reviews/the-honest-broker
Sarewitz completes his policy suggestions by advocating a sort of scientific democracy that includes a worldwide R&D community. Bush might have found Sarewitz heretical to put social science on par with 'hard' science in terms of priority. Yet, what part of science does not involve the social? I assert that one can understand neither except in light of the other.
Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
Review by Michael Beach
Vannevar Bush was the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development for presidents Roosevelt and Truman. He was charged to write a vision for the United States of post World War II science and technology. There had been debate over how much or little US government and military participation (read funding and oversight) was necessary in the pending peace time. The result was a report published under the name Science, the Endless Frontier. The report made a number of overarching suggestions. These assertions included that science brings ‘indefinite benefit', and that research is best left ‘unfettered’. Bush also argued that the scientific community holds itself accountable given it’s processes, and such accountability then gives science trusted authoritativeness. He concludes that if all this effort were sufficiently funded and left alone, that knowledge produced through science represents a form of endless frontier that is ever-advancing.
Daniel Sarewitz wrote the book referenced in this review as a sort of critique to the Bush report. He frames each of Bush’s major points as ‘myths’. He links them with Thomas Kuhn's 'paradigm' concept. From that perspective, those engaged in 'normal science’ would naturally question those seeking to overthrow that paradigm. After arguing against each Bush-myth, Sarewitz proposes in several chapters that science is a sort of marketplace and a “surrogate for social action” (Sarewitz 1996, 141). He finished the book making the case for a “new mythology” (Sarewitz 1996, 169). In his version of science, he stresses five ‘policy suggestions’ in lieu of Vannevar Bush’s policies. Sarewitz calls for expanding diversity among the ranks of scientists and an integration of what he calls “the human element” (Sarewitz 1996, 173). He goes on to suggest the need for more “honest brokers” (Sarewitz 1996) in science as described by Roger Pielke in his book by that name.
Here’s a link to my review of Pielke’s book:
http://bhaven.org/reviews/the-honest-broker
Sarewitz completes his policy suggestions by advocating a sort of scientific democracy that includes a worldwide R&D community. Bush might have found Sarewitz heretical to put social science on par with 'hard' science in terms of priority. Yet, what part of science does not involve the social? I assert that one can understand neither except in light of the other.
RSS Feed