. Given the importance of the issue of scientific objectivity in our democratic societies and the significant development of citizen science, it is crucial to investigate how citizen science may either undermine or foster scientific objectivity. This paper identifies a variety of epistemic risks and benefits that participation of lay citizens in scientific inquiries may bring. It also discusses concrete actions and pending issues that should be addressed in order to foster objectivity in citizen science programs.

The question of the division of cognitive labor has given rise to various models characterizing the way scientists should distribute their efforts. These models often consider the scientific community as a self-governed sphere constituted by rational agents making choices on the basis of fixed rules. Such models have recently been criticized for not taking into account the real mechanisms of science funding. Hence, the question of the utility of the DCL models in guiding science policy remains an open one. In (...) this paper, we show that two unconsidered dimensions would have to be taken into account. First, DCL studies miss the existence of distinct levels of epistemic objectives organizing the research process. Indeed, the scientific field is structured as a system of hierarchical, interconnected practices which are defined both by their inherent purposes and by various superposed external functions. Second, I criticize the absence of ontological considerations, since the epistemological significance of pluralism is highly dependent on the nature of the object under study. Because of these missing dimensions, current DCL models might have a limited usefulness to identify good practices of research governance. (shrink)

The building of a global model of carcinogenesis is one of modern biology’s greatest challenges. The traditional somatic mutation theory is now supplemented by a new approach, called the Tissue Organization Field Theory. According to TOFT, the original source of cancer is loss of tissue organization rather than genetic mutations. In this paper, we study the argumentative strategy used by the advocates of TOFT to impose their view. In particular, we criticize their claim of incompatibility used to justify the necessity (...) to definitively reject SMT. First, we note that since it is difficult to build a non-ambiguous experimental demonstration of the superiority of TOFT, its partisans add epistemological and metaphysical arguments to the debate. This argumentative strategy allows them to defend the necessity of a paradigm shift, with TOFT superseding SMT. To do so, they introduce a notion of incompatibility, which they actually use as the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability. To justify this so-called incompatibility between the two theories of cancer, they move the debate to a metaphysical ground by assimilating the controversy to a fundamental opposition between reductionism and organicism. We show here that this argumentative strategy is specious, because it does not demonstrate clearly that TOFT is an organicist theory. Since it shares with SMT its vocabulary, its ontology and its methodology, it appears that a claim of incompatibility based on this metaphysical plan is not fully justified in the present state of the debate. We conclude that it is more cogent to argue that the two theories are compatible, both biologically and metaphysically. We propose to consider that TOFT and SMT describe two distinct and compatible causal pathways to carcinogenesis. This view is coherent with the existence of integrative approaches, and suggests that they have a higher epistemic value than the two theories taken separately. (shrink)

The question of the division of cognitive labor has given rise to various models characterizing the way scientists should distribute their efforts. These models often consider the scientific community as a self-governed sphere constituted by rational agents making choices on the basis of fixed rules. Such models have recently been criticized for not taking into account the real mechanisms of science funding. Hence, the question of the utility of the DCL models in guiding science policy remains an open one. In (...) this paper, we show that two unconsidered dimensions would have to be taken into account. First, DCL studies miss the existence of distinct levels of epistemic objectives organizing the research process. Indeed, the scientific field is structured as a system of hierarchical, interconnected practices which are defined both by their inherent purposes and by various superposed external functions. Second, I criticize the absence of ontological considerations, since the epistemological significance of pluralism is highly dependent on the nature of the object under study. Because of these missing dimensions, current DCL models might have a limited usefulness to identify good practices of research governance. (shrink)

The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of scholars as an alternative to peer-review. This lottery scheme draws on the lack of efficiency and of robustness of the peer-review based evaluation to argue that the (...) majority of public resources for basic science should be allocated randomly. I first differentiate between two distinct arguments used to defend this alternative funding scheme based on considerations about the logic of scientific research. To assess their epistemological limits, I then present and develop a conceptual frame, grounded on the notion of “system of practice”, which can be used to understand what precisely it means, for a research project, to be interesting or significant. I use this epistemological analysis to show that the lottery model is not theoretically optimal, since it underestimates the integration of all scientific projects in densely interconnected systems of conceptual, experimental, or technical practices which confer their proper interest to them. I also apply these arguments in order to criticize the classical peer-review process. I finally suggest, as a discussion, that some recently proposed models that bring to the fore a principle of decentralization of the evaluation and selection process may constitute a better alternative, if the practical conditions of their implementation are adequately settled. (shrink)

The issue of the conservatism of scientific research questions the nature and the role of the internal and external forces controlling the emergence of new research questions or problems, the exploration of risky directions of research, or the use of risky research methods. This issue has recently gained a new framing in connection with the growing importance of the peer-review process and of the social and economic pressures weighing on the funding of scientific research. Current literature then interrogates the external (...) and internal features that promote what are described as conservative tendencies in scientific research. In this paper, I propose to contribute to this debate by clarifying what might be internal sources of conservatism in science; that is, that are inherent to the research process itself. I distinguish two possible understandings of the sources and manifestations of this internal conservatism. I first present a representational description of the nature and origin of conservatism in science, which brings to the fore the difficulties researchers find in setting aside their conceptual framework. I then offer for consideration a larger perspective on conservatism by arguing for the existence of a practical conservatism generated by all the dimensions of scientific activities. In this framework, conservatism in science can be explained by the tendency of all practices to close in on their own local objectives. I illustrate this view by reference to an historical episode: the discovery of the chemical nature of genes by Avery. (shrink)

The unpredictability of the development and results of a research program is often invoked in favor of a free, desinterested science that would be led mainly by scientific curiosity, in contrast with a use-inspired science led by definite practical expectations. This paper will challenge a crucial but underexamined assumption in this line of defense of scientific freedom, namely that a free science is the best system of science to generate unexpected results. We will propose conditions favoring the occurrence of unexpected (...) facts in the course of a scientific investigation and then establish that use-inspired science actually scores better in this area. (shrink)

La participation au développement scientifique et technique d’individus n’appartenant pas à la sphère académique est une pratique ancienne, qui connaît aujourd’hui un regain d’intérêt, notamment sous la forme de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler « sciences participatives ». Les pratiques de participation se sont ainsi fortement diversifiées durant les deux dernières décennies dans des domaines comme les sciences de l’environnement, la biomédecine, l’astronomie ou encore la biologie fondamentale. Cette croissance marquée des programmes de « sciences participatives » a conditionné l’essor (...) d’une littérature pluridisciplinaire s’attachant à décrire ces pratiques dans leurs dimensions sociologique, politique, éthique ou épistémologique. Cet état de l’art se propose de recenser les principaux enjeux d’ordre épistémologique posés par les différentes formes de participation citoyenne à la constitution de connaissances scientifiques, en se restreignant ici au cas des sciences de la nature. Il s’agira de souligner à la fois les opportunités et les obstacles qu’elles soulèvent tels qu’ils sont présentés et étudiés dans la littérature. L’un des objectifs de cette recension est de contribuer ainsi à constituer la question de la participation citoyenne comme un champ de recherche à part entière pour la philosophie des sciences. (shrink)

What should citizens understand about science to participate in democratic life? Against the prevailing approach, we argue that “what” a public understanding of science is about strongly depends on the specific epistemological nature of the science related issues considered in different contexts and circumstances. We identify three specific categories of such issues and show how, equally, specific models of public understanding are required to address them. Only by endorsing such an alternative approach will citizens arguably be able to form sound (...) opinions about those very issues, as well as to discuss and deliberate rationally about them. (shrink)

In a previous paper recently published in this journal, we argue that the two main theories of carcinogenesis should be considered as compatible, at the metaphysical, epistemological and biological levels. In a reply to our contribution, Bizzarri and Cucina claim we are wrong since SMT and TOFT are opposite and incompatible paradigms. Here, we show that their arguments are not satisfactory. Indeed, the authors go through the same mistakes that we already addressed. In particular, they confuse reductionism, as an ontological (...) frame, and genetic determinism, as a causal pathway. Beside, they make an inadequate use of the Kuhnian notion of paradigm shift. Finally, we confirm our previous conclusion: there is no strong argument to totally abandon the somatic mutation theory. It describes a partial causal pathway, compatible with the one proposed by TOFT. (shrink)

Le caractère imprévisible du développement et des résultats de la science est souvent invoqué pour défendre la valeur épistémique d’une recherche libre, désintéressée, guidée par la seule curiosité, contre sa finalisation par des objectifs pratiques. Notre travail a pour vocation de poser les jalons d’une analyse critique rigoureuse de cet « argument d’imprévisibilité ». Pour ce faire, nous proposons de considérer une étude de cas : la découverte du phénomène d’interférence à ARN. Nous montrons que l’utilisation régulière de cet épisode (...) pour défendre un principe d’autonomie scientifique est fautive. Dans ce cas en effet, la part d’inattendu a émergé d’une science « inspirée par l’usage », alors que de la recherche « fondamentale » n’a émergé que du prévisible, tant au niveau des démarches mises en œuvre que des résultats obtenus. Nous suggérons alors que l’argument d’imprévisibilité, mobilisé souvent de manière trop intuitive et superficielle, rate sa cible en négligeant de séparer la question de la genèse et celle de la gestion de l’inattendu. La distinction de ces deux aspects du problème nous semble nécessaire pour évaluer avec précision la portée et les limites de l’argument d’imprévisibilité. (shrink)