In my response to Andrew Webster's examples I point to certain limitations, while fully supporting the thrust of his argument for a re-engagement of science and technology studies with policy making. When analyzing the policy implications of knowledge, the larger context must be considered. New criteria, like transparency, have arisen and the tendency for evidence-based policy making has become widespread. The managerial side of policy making emphasizes that "only what can be measured, can be managed." The crucial question is how (...) well prepared-and how willing-the STS community is to tackle policy making in this new guise. In the end, what is needed are institutions that are capable of developing their own reflexivity-a task to which STS can certainly contribute, but the road to be taken may be less direct than Andrew Webster suggests. (shrink)

Taking the lead from complexity theory and complex systems methodology, the article argues that we are engaged in a contradictory process when encountering, analysing and dealing with complexity. We face opposite tendencies that indicate an in-built dynamic between the increase of complexity and its reduction. The increase partly comes through evolution, defined as the transmission of information and partly from the desire for a human-built world that functions more efficiently. The reduction of complexity is due partly to the necessity of (...) minimizing unwanted and unintended consequences of its increase, and partly due to the continued re-alignment between social systems and their environments. The article examines the public debate about human stem cell research, the debates in the 18th century about the free circulation of commodities and opinions, and the attempts to provide answers to the question debated between Einstein and Freud: why war? The article concludes by arguing that the plea for a re-alignment of scientific disciplines will not suffice. Instead, the study of the co-evolution between science and society offers itself as a strategic research site by focusing on the dynamic interplay between the increase of complexity and its reduction. (shrink)

Relying on a powerful collective narrative through which political, legal and social decision-making is guided in the name of science, the authority of scientific experts reaches beyond the boundaries of their certified knowledge base. Therefore, expertise constitutes and is constituted by transgressive competence. The author argues that changes in the decision-making structure of liberal Western democracies and changes in the knowledge production system diminish the authority of scientific expertise while increasing the context-dependency of expertise - thereby altering the nature of (...) its predictive claims; the societal distribution of expertise, while displaying emancipatory features of empowerment of citizens, also raises issues of quality control; and in order to regain a balance between public and private, i.e. individual-based societally distributed expertise, future expert systems will need to adopt a longer time-perspective. The author also reflects on directions in which future expert systems might evolve. (shrink)

The article retraces the social and institutional circumstances that in 1986 led two researchers at the IBM laboratory near Zurich, Müller and Bednorz, to discover high-temperature superconductivity. After confirmation of the unexpected breakthrough an unprecedented mobilization of research groups all over the world took place while simul taneously high-temperature superconductivity turned into a subject of intense media interest. The authors discuss these events under three perspectives: the closer interlinkage capacity of researchers and the relationship between the social organization of research (...) and unforeseen cases of scientific creativity. (shrink)

Dear John, You would have agreed with me that by writing to you I am putting into practice what your essay is all about: an act of cognitive intersubjectivity. It aims at reaching a common understanding or even a shared interpretation that is sufficiently wide to include whatever differences may remain between us. At the same time, I am aware, and painfully so, that this intersubjectivity has become asymmetrical, for you will not be able to respond this time. The symmetry (...) has been broken (and you know better than I what this means in physics). And yet, cognitive intersubjectivity enables me to render you fully present in my imagination. Therefore, by writing to you as I have done in the past, I wish to render homage to you as a friend and colleague. But it is also a tribute to your endless curiosity, your firm belief in the power of ideas and to your wisdom. For you have chosen intersubjectivity as one of your last intellectual puzzles to solve. May the bonds of intersubjectivity live on for generations to come. (shrink)

At first sight the interrelation between the two main themes of this paper, time structuring and time measurement, seems to be simple enough. Time is something that we measure and that we measure with. But what is it that we measure and how is it constructed that we come to think of it as being measurable? As Leach has pointed out, in any society the prevailing ideas about the nature of time and space are closely linked up with the kinds (...) of measuring scales which are thought to be appropriate. If we alter the scales and dimensions with which we measure, we seem to alter the nature of that which is being measured, as well. (shrink)