Joel Phillips

Your criticism of Ben Goldacre's scientism misses the point of his project.  Yes, most interesting scientific issues involve uncertainty and doubt.  However, his choice of topics is not based on scientific interest, for instance, no-one interested in scientific results alone would pay any attention to the Durham fish oil trials. 

In fact, it is often the lack of scientific interest in a subject that makes it a subject for Bad Science.  Whilst there are many issues over which there is uncertainty, there are also many over which we can have a high degree of confidence.  The world is flat; the effect of a 10^60 dilution of a substance will be the same as a 10^30 dilution (i.e. non-existent); the scant and contrived evidence for a link between MMR and autism puts it low on the list of things to be troubled about.  These are quite boring scientifically, the interesting questions are about the mechanisms that cause people to believe in something in spite of the high level of scientific confidence that it is untrue, and the consequences of those beliefs. 

On the broader point, I wonder which is more important:  that people start asking better questions, or that scientists start giving better answers?  In an academic setting, many scientists are capable of giving highly nuanced answers about their beliefs and doubts, which suggests that at least some of the problem comes from people's inability to ask the right questions.  By demonstrating how to challenge "evidence" on easy examples like homeopathy, the Brain Gym, supplements, etc., maybe projects like Ben's also show people the kind of questions that they could ask about more difficult and uncertain subjects.

Jack Stilgoe

Thanks Joel,

Your points, the vast majority of which I agree with, take us somewhere quite interesting. Maybe this is about internal vs external accounts of science. As you say, the science behind many issues of public concern isn't particularly fascinating. But the social test of robustness means that someone has to take it seriously, and appreciate that uncertainty within science - talked about in the language of hypotheses, error bars, confidence intervals etc. - is very different from uncertainty as seen from outside science, where we become interested in further research, precaution, politics and stuff.

The most interesting aspect of Ben's work, and where I think we strongly agree, is its implications for access and accessibility. Unlike many positivists, he doesn't want to shore up the barriers around science and protect its certification. He wants to throw open the doors and show people a new side of science's authority - its processes rather than its products.

Jack Stilgoe

Ben Goldacre emails in a response... (below). Thanks Ben.

hi jack, i enjoy our chats too, although i do genuinely mean it when i say that i don't understand half of the long words used by social scientists at your events.

i've just looked up scientism. i guess you're saying my position is that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations.

in fact nothing could be further from the truth. i've always pursued a very horses-for-courses take on what intellectual tools you might use in approaching a given question.

however, in my work in the column and blog (only a part of what i do in life) i only write about people who claim to speak in the language of science, and posture as using its tools and conventions, so the tools to be used are already defined by them. this is true of the anti-abortion campaigner who uses bogus statistics in place of a moral argument; the PR company selling a nonsense equation instead of simply buying an advert; the times front page claiming that schoolchildrens' cocaine use has doubled when it hasn't; the pharma drug advert claiming that mood is all about serotonin; and the quack claiming complex social problems in schools will be ameliorated with a fish oil pill. i am not imposing science, as a way of seeing, on these situations, as a "scientismist", from on high. these stories and claims arrived at my door packaged up that way already.

in fact i would say a recurring theme in the stories i write on is that they use scientific explanations where they are not just wrong, but also largely unneeded, and unwarranted, often as distractions. it's almost a case of too much science. if you look at the "fish oil pills improve intelligence and behaviour" coverage in the newspapers - and i genuinely suspect this is the most well reported clinical trial of the past two years - you will find at their foundation that these stories are really saying "pill solves complex social problem".

lastly in this ramble (in best humour) you suggest i am overly certain in my work. i find this fairly odd in a blog entry triggered by a pair of radio programmes which were primarily - and at many points explicitly - about the tension between uncertainty (from research on nutrition and health) and certainty (from those who sell miracle cures). 

http://www.badscience.net/?p=648

http://www.badscience.net/?p=650

specifically i hoped these shows were about the issue of people making firm statements in an area where the evidence shows only that anyone making firm statements is wrong. certainly i reiterated that point enough that i began to worry i was overdoing it.

Neil Young

"sociologist of science"

to misquote Feynman

sociology of science is about as useful to science as ornithology is to birds.

Jack Stilgoe

Thanks Neil,

I don't let it bring me down.

More thoughtful people than Richard Feynman have said that science doesn't need sociology because it is, par excellence, a self-critical culture. But science only asks itself a certain sort of question. Certainly the countless scientists we've been working with over the last few years have found it useful joining a new conversation. If the birds could understand, they might be interested to hear what the ornithologists have to say.

Neil Young

be interested to know how you think the last  50 years of, say, synthetic organic chemistry would have panned out if the leading figures in that field had enjoyed more conversations with sociologists of science. Do you think there would be anything to be gained from serious science research group engaging with a sociologist on a regular basis?

i can see that since the demise of the self funded gentleman-scientist I can see that science has only been able to ask those questions it can get funding to answer  - and that funding is driven by societies needs to varying degrees. But that's no great surprise, and I suspect, not that interesting to a lot of scientists - maybe that's the mindset of the scientists I mingle with, or maybe it's because of complex social reasons that are worthy of investigation by sociologists of science.

either way, be interesting to pin down your thoughts on how it would have affected post war organic synthesis.

Jack Stilgoe

Really hard to play counterfactuals. And I don't know much about synthetic organic chemistry. But your historical question raises an important point of the extent to which the discussions sociologists should or do encourage are contextual. If you want an example of it happening now, I can point to the Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration on Nanotechnology in Cambridge, one of the world's leading nano labs. In 2004, the director, Mark Welland, hired a social scientist, Rob Doubleday as a co-researcher, to help the scientists reflect on the social and ethical aspects of their work, while also contributing to knowledge about how science is done, why and for whom. Taking your lead from synthetic chemistry, it will be fascinating to see how the emerging field of synthetic biology grows up in the presence of various types of scientist and social scientist.

Neil Young

be good to pin you down and ask you to speculate on how synthetic biology (and I confess to working with a number of people who would describe aspects of their work as synthetic biology, but it's not my primary area) will develop if more sociologists were involved in the field. Just a flavour of where you think greater interaction would take the underlying science.

I have no doubt the sociologist studying a series of research projects will be of great interest the sociologists in question. And perhaps the scientists will benefit from thinking about the social and ethical aspects of their work (although if you work in atomic force microscopy, to pick on example of a project area you link to, I'm not sure how much ethical or social meat there is on the bones of that work.)

i still can't help but agreeing with Feynman's general point. As you say in post 5 the birds might be very interested in what the ornithologist have to say,  but it isn't going to help them build a nest..

Jack Stilgoe

Neil,

Now that's a good challenge! What is my vision for collaborative, reflexive, sociologically-informed synthetic biology? First, I agree that sociologists just studying science in action doesn't really cut it. We'll let Bruno Latour do that. A constructive contribution of social scientists to science means rethinking the place of sociology, getting close to the idea of "Public Sociology." In the excellent appendix of our Governing at the Nanoscale pamphlet, Brian Wynne reflects on such a model.

So sociology needs to be part of the process of interdisciplinary research, which means sociologists need to become part of the conversation through which avenues are explored, experiments are designed, applications are imagined, funding is sought, expert advice is offered and results are communicated. One of the most interesting arguments within recent sociology of science is that all science contains (normally implicit) visions of the future. These "imaginaries," if they are left unexplored, often define trajectories and research questions which, without malice, mean that science goes down certain paths. One job of a public sociologist should be to ask  the emerging synthetic biology community what they imagine the future to be and what part their science plays in it. This is what we have done, in a modest way, with our work on nanotechnology. At its best, it leads to a realisation that alternatives are possible, which can be hugely empowering. So we recently brought some nanoscientists together with some of the development community to ask why nano wasn't addressing developing world needs. The aim was to suggest alternative trajectories for science, but far from imposing additional pressures on science, the scientists felt empowered to talk about the value of what they were doing in new ways. For a universtiy professor constrained by the expectations of increasingly economistic funders, the chance to explore real public value is refreshing.

Getting back to synthetic biology... We are seeing with syn bio that there are already pretty visions of the future emerging. Syn bio , in the hands of Craig Venter, promises to replace the oil industry. But it also promises to create anti-malarials in new, cheaper ways. It offers a way for companies to claim intellectual property on new biological systems. But it also suggests an opening for a new sort of "open-source biology." What sociologists should do is keep these conversations alive, make sure that they are not closed down through lazy assumptions about economic benefits or public expectations. And they can open them up to new possibilities. They can do this at a discursive political level, but they can also do this inside labs. Our experience is that scientists appreciate this. The bigger question is whether social scientists are up to it. The ornithologists are going to have to get better at talking bird.

Neil Young

Hmm,

"So sociology needs to be part of the process of interdisciplinary research, which means sociologists need to become part of the conversation through which avenues are explored, experiments are designed, applications are imagined, funding is sought, expert advice is offered and results are communicated."

I am still not clear how to skills, language and methods of sociology could be applied here - nor how they would benefit the work of scientists. Of course, more strategic thinking will open up new possibilities - but what would a sociologist bring that, say, a poet wouldn't?

In what way could a sociologist help design (to refer to the nanotech in cambridge groups work) density functional theory studies on electron transport in polymers? if, as you say, sociologist should help 'design experiments.'  Would a sociologist be any better equipped than a poet to help scientists explore avenues they hadn't considered? What methods, techniques, concepts, arguments can sociologists claim as their own that would allow this process to flourish?

The general thrust of the paragraph appears (to my uncultured eyes, maybe) to be that sociologist should help get scientists together to think about how their broad area should progress .

I would suggest that senior scientist *do* spend a lot of time thinking about and discussing such things  - with the added advantage that they can discuss lucidly experimental design and feasible applications.

I've no doubt that more free and frank discussion between leaders in a field would be of benefit - but I still cannot grasp what the *particular* skills of sociology would bring to the table.  I may be wrong, but the role you see here for the sociologist is that of a co-ordinator or chairman allowing more exchange of ideas about science at the strategic level. I think that rather wastes the skills of sociology.

as for synthetic biology - i agree the use of novel enzymes to generate new drugs is going to be a huge growth area, and there are plenty of interesting questions about ownership of genes etc. But will more interaction with sociologist *really* allow scientists to understand the economic benefits of the new science?

Does it cut both ways? Do you think sociology would benefit from the input of scientists? Should particle physicists spend time discussing new trends in social studies? Can a molecular biologist involve themselves in the birth of a new social theory?

Jack Stilgoe

Hi Neil,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. A Demos record, I think. It's really made me think about what social scientists are good at, and where they would be most constructive. Certainly, I am not arguing that every scientist has a sociologist sitting on her shoulder, nor that every lab has a helpline to Bruno Latour. A sociologist may not be very helpful in working through the specifics of density functional theory. But, as epidemiologists increasingly realise, if you want to design a trial to see if mobile phone masts cause cancer, and to come up with persuasive results, a social scientist might come in very handy. I have nor problem about substituting a social scientist with a poet, anyone who can disrupt normal assumptions is valuable. I was facilitating an Ideas Factory on nanotechnology for the EPSRC last year and we had a sculptor come along as part of the group. He was one of the reasons why the research proposals that emerged were very different from decades of previous nanotech research. The projects funded by this scheme are underway at the moment, and we'll have to see what they produce... have a look at this /projects/thenanodialogues/blog/anewsoftmachine
Sociologists, who advocate reflexivity, are themselves culturally unreflexive. Any engagement with other disciplines that makes them appreciate and hone their value and their limits seems valuable to me.

These arguments will run and run. My pathetic conclusion is that this is all pretty new. We've seen it work, and we've seen plenty of examples where new collaboration between scientists and social scientists wouldn't offer a huge amount. Maybe we are just casting sociologists as chairmen. But maybe that's one of their core skills. Unlike scientists, social scientists rarely have facts to fall back on, so our skills are under constant negotiation.

Incidentally, where do you work?