Discussions of technoscience are bringing to light that scientific journals feature very different knowledge claims. At one end of the spectrum, there is the scientific claim that a hypothesis needs to be reevaluated in light of new evidence. At the other end of the spectrum, there is the technoscientific claim that some new measure of control has been achieved in a laboratory. The latter claim has not received sufficient attention as of yet. In what sense is the achievement of control (...) genuine knowledge in its own right; how is this knowledge acquired; and publicly validated? Notions of tacit or embodied knowledge, of knowledge by acquaintance, of engineering or thing knowledge, and reconstructions of ability or skill take us only part of the way towards answering such questions. The epistemology of technoscience needs to account for the acquisition and demonstration of a public knowledge of control that does not consist in the holding of propositions, even though it is usually communicated in writing: Technoscientific knowledge is, firstly, objective and public insofar as it is exhibited and documented. Secondly, it presupposes a specific context of technology and expertise. Thirdly, it is communicable, even where the achieved capability itself is not. Knowledge of control entails, fourthly, a knowledge of causal relationships, and it sediments itself, fifthly, as a habit of action in the sense proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce. (shrink)

The central question addressed is: How should scientific research be conducted so as to ensure that nature is respected and the well being of everyone everywhere enhanced? After pointing to the importance of methodological pluralism for an acceptable answer and to obstacles posed by characterizing scientific methodology too narrowly, which are reinforced by the ‘commercial-scientific ethos’, two additional questions are considered: How might research, conducted in this way, have impact on—and depend on—strengthening democratic values and practices? And: What is thereby (...) implied for the responsibilities of scientists today? (shrink)

This article responds to Janet Kourany’s proposal, in Philosophy of Science after Feminism, that scientific practices be held to the ideal of ‘socially responsible science’, to produce results that are not only cognitively sound, but also significant in the light of values ‘that can be morally justified’. Kourany also urges the development of ‘contextualized philosophy of science’—of which feminist philosophy of science is exemplary—that is ‘politically engaged’ and ‘activist’, ‘informed by analyses of the actual ways in which science interacts with (...) the wider society in which it occurs, the ways in which science is shaped by and in turn shapes society’, and that can contribute to understanding both the cognitive and social dimensions of science. Although I share Kourany’s commitment to contextualized philosophy of science, I question her proposed ideal of ‘socially responsible science’ and the grounds she provides for adopting it. My argument leads me to defend rehabilitating the traditional ideal of the ‘neutrality’ of science, which I reinterpret as the ideal of ‘inclusiveness and evenhandedness’. (shrink)

RESUMO Este artigo discute a divisão do trabalho científico entre pesquisadores seniores e juniores em um centro de pesquisa brasileiro de genética humana e médica. Partindo do debate contemporâneo sobre a progressiva imbricação entre ciência e tecnologia - com progressiva fusão entre ambas, que evoca noções como a de tecnociência - é possível verificar, na subárea específica, velocidades crescentes na produção de dados, que pressionam os pesquisadores de maneiras distintas, seja pelo crescente custo das inovações tecnológicas, seja pela necessidade de (...) métodos mais complexos para a análise. Nesse contexto, analiso questões relativas à especialização do trabalho científico, à separação entre concepção e execução, e às transformações correlatas na formação de novos pesquisadores. Parte-se do pressuposto teórico-metodológico de que a atividade científica não pode ser tratada de forma homogênea, existindo configurações distintas de acordo com o espaço disciplinar, a organização institucional e a tradição científica local, entendida enquanto empreendimento historicamente enraizado e social e culturalmente contingente. ABSTRACT The article discusses the division of scientific labour among senior and junior researchers in a Brazilian research center for human and medical genetics. Starting with the contemporary debate on the progressive intertwining of science and technology - with progressive fusion of both, evoking notions such as technoscience - it is possible to verify, in this specific subarea, rising speed in data production that pressure scientists in different manners: through the rising cost of technological innovations and through the necessity for more complex methods of analysis. In this context I analyze issues concerning the specialization of scientific work, the separation between conception and execution as well as correlate changes in the formation of new researchers. The theoretical-methodological pressupposition is that scientific activity cannot be treated in a homogeneous way, and that there exist distinct configurations according to the disciplinary space, the institucional organization and local scientific tradition, understood as a historically rooted and socially and culturally contingent undertaking. (shrink)