Marilou Schultz, "Replica of a Chip," 1994, wool, 47 x 57 inches. Collection of the American Indian Science and Engineering Society.

Events

Was Science’s Social Contract “Just a Myth”?

Watch the Recording

If the public funds science and gives it autonomy to govern itself, then benefits such as economic growth, innovation, and national security will follow “almost automatically.” This unwritten social contract was long thought to underpin policymakers’ relationship to the scientific enterprise, but the administration’s cuts to science funding and mass federal agency layoffs suggest the pact’s days are over. 

But was the social contract actually good for science—and the public that funded it? Philosopher Heather Douglas says that “the social contract was a useful myth, but it was corrosive for the relationship between science, politics, and publics.” And political scientist David Guston has argued that the contract died long ago. On November 20th at 3:00 PM ET, join us for a virtual conversation on the legacy of the social contract, and what its role might be in the future of the scientific enterprise. 

This event is part of an exploration of science’s social contract that is generously supported by The Kavli Foundation.

Panelists

  • Ian Banks, director of science policy, Foundation for American Innovation
  • Heather Douglas, professor, Michigan State University
  • David Guston, associate vice provost, Global Futures Laboratory, Arizona State University
  • C. Brandon Ogbunu, associate professor, Yale University
  • Bina Venkataraman (moderator), journalist and author of The Optimist’s Telescope

Resources

Chat Transcript

This transcript has been edited. Please also note that the opinions and perspectives of commenters, writers, interviewees and guests do not represent an official statement, policy or perspective from Arizona State University.

Peter Bonk: When science got hyper politicized with climate–when it decided to advocate rather than remain an Honest Broker–trust was broken and accelerated, Covid which should have been the CDC’s finest hour, became the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Trust is very difficult to get back. Hubris is an occupational hazard for the highly educated, especially in medicine and science.

Terry Bristol: Duke’s Henry Petroski: “Everything you thought of as science is really engineering.” Inquiry and knowledge don’t make sense of the law-governed, deterministic Worldview. We need to move from the Scientific Worldview to a more general engineering worldview.

Siddhartha Arora: Peter Bonk – how do you measure hubris? Is there a way to measure or validate your claim?

Jacqueline Howells: To whom is so obscured, for what, and why I find far more important than how at this point, but open to hearing. As someone who has PhD and has been forced out of academia in most sense, how can I contribute to helping account for scientific errors?

Ilana Goldowitz: If scientists were truly drawn from every segment of our society, science would be more responsive to what’s valuable for our communities without as much need for government regulation

Peter Bonk: the history of science is full of examples of folks that were very certain, but were wrong. See for example The Emperor of the Maladies– the early work trying to treat childhood leukemias.

Terry Bristol: Stanford’s Walter Vincenti (Book: What Engineers Know and How They Know It) pointed out that the benefits for society credited to science are misguided. Science doesn’t tell you how to build an airplane, or a cell phone, or anything else. We need to get over the meme that ‘science’ benefits society. Science is a nice tool but it doesn’t generate benefits to society.

Terry Bristol: Meta-science is a euphemism for philosophy of science, active from the beginning of the 20th century.

Jacqueline Howells: Ideology or Business Methodology?

Gary Conkol: Most practical use of science is that definition that science is the search for knowledge and technology is the use of that knowledge and in multiple domains

Kennan Salinero: I have seen that Covid itself created a deeper divide between belief systems, and for many created a deeper mistrust in ‘science’

Peter Bonk:    Terry B  Our understanding of disease – I consider that science-  has helped immensely. One has to understand how the world works to make planes, cell phones, rockets.   that understanding is no longer intuitive, and is hard work to get that knowledge.

Pandiyan Natarajan: Science should not be based on dogmas or authority or political affiliation. IT SHOULD ONLY BE BASED ON SCIENCE. Unfortunately, Scientists are human with all the frailties and often they respond to prevailing dogmas.

Paul Barnett: As Stafford Beer said, “The Purpose of a System is What It Does” (POSIWID) and science is a system. I added “Now” to Beer’s comment as over time, purpose changes intentionally or unintentionally. As a consequence, people lose sight of the purpose. And I would argue the system becomes self-serving. The same happens with any large complicated system Education, Government, etc.

David Goldston: I don’t think the current attacks on science have much of anything to do with what’s happening now.  I think science is collateral damage now because of ideological attacks on universities and the federal government.  COVID may have made it easier, but those fights were more about policy than science per se.

David Goldston: Sorry, what I meant got garbled.  What I meant: I don’t think the current attacks on science have much to do with the kinds of concerns about science that have just been enumerated. My other sentence stands.

Terry Bristol: Peter – the inquiry that led to that knowledge of disease was practical, engineering inquiry.

Lucas Held: Terry, I haven’t read the book, but shouldn’t we see engineering and science as interacting? Example: The convolutional coding invented by Peter Elias, the late information theorist based at MIT, is what laid the foundation for large-scale data transmission on which we are relying to use this webinar chat (and hear and see the speakers). That’s just a tiny example.

Pandiyan Natarajan: Science should also be relevant to the needs of the society as after all it is funded by the society.

Terry Bristol: Lucas – that is all engineering R&D.

Zachary Pirtle: I like Bristol’s call for a Social Contract for Engineering. Perhaps such a call needs to be a macro-societal contract, as of course there are many actual contracts for major engineering efforts that spell out required societal outcomes (build freeways/maintain a space station/get supersonic flight). Yet those contracts rarely capture broader secondary/societal impacts of engineering on society, access, etc.

Timiebi Aganaba: Lucas, I agree that they have to be seen as interacting. I enjoyed this recent book by Nancy Cartwright, Jeremy Hardie, Eleonora Montuschi, Matthew Soleiman, and Ann C. Thresher “The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity” and did a short review in Nature on it. For me, as an international lawyer, I took away lessons on strategy and legal reasoning; namely that while a vast body of scientific work turns facts into what society likes to call “evidence”, whatever could be seen as evidence is actually a “virtuous tangle,” which explains the supporting role the elements or ingredients play.  To that end, you can never separate the materials from the work of the worker.

Peter Bonk: Terry – understanding something to answer a question or solve a problem -will slide over to engineering from the point you try to make and the book you reference.   A lot of work in “science” has no immediate application.

Huw Morris:   @barnett Stafford Beer also said in the viable systems model that systems should have a policy/strategy function, an intelligence gathering function, a resource allocation function, a coordinating function and a delivery function.

Jacqueline Howells: “Free researchers of the burden of writing grants, less regulation, remove onerous burden” Is it not a fundamental tenet of science is the inherent property of the burden of proof? Is there no concern that “Decreased regulation” will allow for the continued and expanded unethical treatment of graduate students and allowing for the unethical experiments or completely known to be irrelevant/already studied, that the government should allow for allocation when it suits them? Decreased regulation is not just about what you are no longer blocked by from doing, but also now expanded what you are allowed to do with lack of consequences (Or even worse, increased promotion!) — this is exacerbated by the current social contractual “Ecosystem”, a circumstance instantiated by tenure and authoritarians (De jure or de facto). I am not on the political spectrum in an “anything goes” sense (Philosophers may actually understand what this means contextually)

Michael Holland: I would argue that one of our problems is that few if any researchers are trained how to operate at the interface of science and society, particularly when it comes to science advising and technology assessment.  Many mix or confuse funding advocacy with both of those activities.  That doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.  When it comes to science advising, researchers are often not adept about conveying the state of knowledge in a way the respects the responsibility of policy and political actors to find (and fight over) solutions.  Richard Benedict’s Ozone Diplomacy is a great case study of how rapidly evolving scientific knowledge set constraints on policy choices, but the science did not make the choices.

Tim Clancy:   imo an explicit contract causes more problems that it’s worth.  In many ways, the implicit contract that arose was itself a compromise between Kilgore’s and V. Bush’s views.  Both liberal and conservatives could look at NSF and see things that they liked.

Jacqueline Howells: What happens when truth doesn’t align with reality, I like searching for truth, but i refuse to give up on realities of pain and suffering.

Terry Bristol: My guess is that ‘science’ is (1) dependent on engineering R&D, (2) ‘scientific representation’ of knowledge depends on engineering R&D. In physics, scientific ‘laws’ are all differential equations. Differentials are non-holistic, always leaving something out. Valuable for making approximate predictions.

Jacqueline Howells: I think scientists would benefit from understanding that scientists are also humans, humans are scientists, it is unfortunate that I completely disagree that knowledge and arbitration of scientific validity pushes out those who do seek the truth

Peter Bonk: can truth not align with reality?

Jacqueline Howells: It ought to, unfortunately how many of your relatives have actually benefitted from medications as promised?

David Goldston: Science isn’t the only area that’s facing increased distrust.  It’s not clear to me the degree to which attitudes toward science are being affected by other aspects of societal values as opposed to originating with concerns with science itself.  And many of those who speak most loudly about distrust in science are the ones stoking it.

Jacqueline Howells: the problem is it purposes itself to be the arbitrator of truth and what is and is not allowed to be considered truth.

Terry Bristol: Jacqueline – humans are engineers. We are all concerned with design questions. How to design our lives? How to design our economy? How to design our RR&D enterprise? Berger: A More Beautiful Question.

Jacqueline Howells: thanks for the recs!

Bevin Wathen: This is all very much ‘umbrella speak’ and this is why people don’t trust it. It sounds like what the sales people/prospectors  for coal miners did as they moved into the Appalachian areas and took advantage of the people and communities there for their own benefit. Big tobacco as well.  These companies claimed ‘science’ says it is ok or what should be done.  (Sorry to simplify here, but it does play in here)

Gary Conkol: truth is dependent on the observer’s point of view and value system. That can be coded and allow a piece of knowledge to be quantified relative to truth. See How to quantify trust in AI and internet searches

Jacqueline Howells: If truth is relative, what do you mean?

John Alic: NSF is one player among many in federal funding for science. There’s 15-20 agencies that fund some science. What they fund stems from their mission, as conceived both by political appointees & working level bureaucrats. Moreover, this works differently depending on the field. The relationship between physicists who work on sound transmission in oceans for the Navy and those who get funding from DOE for high-energy research differ. Seems to me you have to start at the bottom and work up to generalizations & macro policy.

Lucas Held:   Terry, Peter is typically classified as an information theorist — his work is written in the form of a mathematical proof. I wouldn’t typically think of this as engineering, though interestingly he was honored with an award by the IEEE, demonstrating the linkage between science and engineering.

Terry Bristol: Lucas – Duke engineer Bejan just got the highest award of the American Soc of Mech Engineering.

Lucas Held: David Goldstein, you raise an important point. Science is — relatively speaking — enjoying a higher level of trust than most other sectors. Henry Brady has an excellent review in a recent issue of Daedalus.

David Goldston: The government can and must set standards to some extent.  Creating a politically favored set of universities through one-off compacts outside of standard processes is an extra-legal process that should never be tolerated by any side of the political spectrum.

Jacqueline Howells: We don’t have a democracy technically- we have a republic. Do you need a priori definitions for what science is?

Terry Bristol: Lucas – A bit deeper, but there is a difference between abstract math and engineering math. The former died with Russell-Whitehead and Goedel. What’s next?

Jacqueline Howells: There is no engineering math, that is called applied math and engineering is a completely different field that uses applied mathematical tools. Pure math and applied math are both not engineering. Math is independent of literally all application. Consider reading Euler.

Terry Bristol: Jacqueline – Respectfully disagree.

Jacqueline Howells: Terry- with all due respect, what do you mean? Do you mean to say engineering math is not application of math?

Terry Bristol: Jacqueline – I have read already too much Euler. Try reading Lazare Carnot (Sadi’s father): Fundamental Principles of Equilibrium and Motion. I might add that Archimedes math is engineering math.

Ilana Goldowitz: Some science professors are shocked by indirect cost rates when they begin submitting grants. Where the money goes hasn’t been transparent even to many people within the system.

Amal Dadi: Regarding asking the public: there is a study from a transparency scholar, Dr. Michael Brunt, that offered community members the opportunity to review animal use protocols. It was a representative sample of the US population (age, gender, etc. balanced)

Jenny Luray:   Research!America’s surveys consistently finds that the public thinks it’s part of the job of scientists to share their research.  Yet, this doesn’t happen.  Scientists aren’t given the tools to do this as part of their training.

Sam Evans: Building on Heather’s point, it seems like scientists (and startups!) often call “bingo!” It’s like the opposite of crying wolf, but it has the same effect: people stop listening.

Lucas Held: Terry, I think we can agree that engineering relies on math which is, to use Hogben’s phrase, “the realm of number.” But shouldn’t we think of engineering as the application of scientific principles to problems of building (whether electronics, civil, mechanical, etc.) and science focusing on seeking to understand? You are making me think that the line might not be so hard — some engineers may be practicing a form of science, and some scientists are working on practical problems.

Kennan Salinero: I believe regulations and oversight are responses to bad behavior….is there potential for a future where there is a committed belief in self-organizing/self-policing in academic science, where integrity and values systems are high priorities?

Amal Dadi: There is so much more room to have direct public input into how science is conducted, what kinds of questions are asked/answered, and how we distribute the benefits of science. It’s super unfair to assume that members of the public won’t understand science or have informed views on it.

Bevin Wathen: The term ‘idealization’ comes in here too. People need to have realistic expectations about science, research and development, and the workers within the fields. Knowing as much what it is not, as well as what it is.

Lisa Margonelli: Here is what happened when the public was asked what they wanted NASA to do about asteroids.

Zachary Pirtle: I believe the ASU CSPO that Dave mentions is about to do citizen forums on what the future of science should be.

Nick Diakopoulos: Should science be directly accountable to the public, or would it make sense for it to be administratively accountable (and therefore only indirectly via elections held accountable by public)?

John Alic: To engineers, mathematics is a tool for problem-solving. Engineers in fact have often advanced mathematical tools. Good examples include numerical methods for needs for big problems that cannot otherwise be handled.

Jacqueline Howells: It is not possible to read too much Euler. To quote Laplace “Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all.” No individual has contributed more to “STE.”

Amal Dadi: Jenny – exactly. Scientists are also not generally required to communicate the results of their research to the public, let alone require public input into how science is conducted. Compared to a common grants requirement that scientists make a plan or demonstrate how they will communicate their research to other scientists

Peter Bonk: Amal, won’t that politicize science even more??

Ilana Goldowitz: Amal Dadi – I agree. I think many people would have a lot of useful input into things like research bioethics, helping shape research priorities, etc. and would be happy to contribute.

Terry Bristol: Jacqueline – I love Euler. I do think you overrate him a little. I’m just not sure whether Euler is on the abstract math or engineering math side. Clearly he understood the math of optimization.

Jenny Luray:   Communicating your work doesn’t politicize it.  There is a fear that if the public is involved it will become politicized but I think that concern is easily addressed.

Amal Dadi: Peter – I would argue that removing science from public consequence and oversight is what has resulted in undue politicization.

Amal Dadi: Democratization =/= politicization.

Ilana Goldowitz: Science becomes inherently politicized when only some segments of society (who don’t represent the publics’ full range of views or life experiences) can build a successful career in science.

Bevin Wathen: Exactly

Jenny Luray:   Ilana – your point is very important.

Lucas Held: +1 to Jenny: Communicating your work can be done in ways that emphasize advocacy, or done in ways that emphasize information and potential implications ranked, if possible, by likelihood.

Cherrill Spencer: Why not get rid of the concept of tenure?

Lucas Held:   +1 to registered reports! It builds trust — see Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s work on building trust in science. People also respond to the thoughtful communication of uncertainty.

Amal Dadi: I am honestly struggling with how unfocused and broad this conversation seems to be. What kinds of science are we talking about – testing? basic/discovery? clinical? translational? Do we have the same standards or expectations of a social contract from private vs. public research organizations, or privately vs. publicly funded research?

John Alic: Brandon is absolutely right. Tinkering is perhaps a bit negative-sounding. But it is, after all, who we in fact think.

Amal Dadi: I’d love to hear specific policy proposals or changes from the panelists that they think would enhance, change, or clarify the social contract

Jonny Behrens: +1 to Amal’s question!

Paul Barnett: Call “tinkering” “curiosity” and refer to the “Age of Curiosity (The Enlightenment) The greatest era of progress. People might buy it.

Sarah Rovito: We just held a workshop on “Rethinking Researcher Assessment and Incentives at U.S. Academic Institutions” at the National Academies (and would LOVE to continue this work and catalyze real change).

Jenny Luray:   The public engagement/civic science movement is growing with the help of Kavli, Rita Allen and other foundations.  The promotion and tenure incentives are critical.

Jacqueline Howells: I agree! What is education, I am a young scientist and honestly, I am confused why we listen over and over to folks who are literally paid to push platitudes. We have discussed metrics for funding without allowing for scientific responses. People must be educated.

Ryan Meyer:  Hear hear.

Athina Zampara: is there a paper on these funding systems?

Kennan Salinero: Aspen Institute currently has a 1.5mil grand challenge on promotion and tenure with a large emphasis on implementation of experimental changes:.

Nick Diakopoulos:    What about research that blends categories?

John Alic: The basic/applied distinction has long been codified via what is known as the (OECD) Frascati manual. The 5 of us who wrote Beyond Spinoff years ago thought of making the revisionary argument. Decided it was hopeless.

Athina Zampara: So, does this funding system overrides the disciplines?

John Alic: Sure, funders are mostly mission-driven. They don’t much care about disciplines. Ask them.

Nic DiPalma: For decades, science agencies and institutes have communicated research primarily in formats and languages built for other experts. That habit has persisted across generations, and the cultural risk has compounded: the more science speaks in its own dialect, the more distance and distrust grow between scientific institutions and the public. “Broader impacts” were required but rarely designed with any real user experience in mind—and almost never enforced. And here we are today.

Janet Hering: Responsible research assessment.

Ryan Meyer: Also, some funders are kinda doing aspects of Heather’s plan in some small ways. But the scientists need to also have a currency for advancement across these different types of funding, and that’s tricky.

Ryan Meyer:  If all the types of research Heather lays out still need, on the flip side, to lead to highly cited academic journal articles, it’s going to be very inefficient.

Pandiyan Natarajan: Yes.

Kimberly Suda: Thank you for this webinar.  These are such important issues — our team at the National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications is also exploring how tenure and promotion systems can better value science communication and support researchers, and engage the public. We’d love to connect with others working on these challenges: commawards@nas.edu.

Pandiyan Natarajan: Science is funded by the society and hence there is a social obligation

John Alic: This panel needed more than 1 working scientist.

Maureen Kearney: YES.

Josh Trapani: from 20 years ago (sound familiar?). Also, I haven’t heard anything about what’s happened to the federal science agencies over the past year.

Nic DiPalma: Science research is infrastructure; not a contract, not segregated, and interwoven into all aspects of life.

Bevin Wathen: Keep exploring this!  Thank you.

Awista Ayub: That was a great panel and such a lively conversation!

Nic DiPalma: For decades, science agencies and institutes have communicated research primarily in formats and languages built for other experts. That habit has persisted across generations, and the cultural risk has compounded: the more science speaks in its own dialect, the more distance and distrust grow between scientific institutions and the public. “Broader impacts” were required, but rarely designed with any real user experience in mind—and almost never enforced.

Ilana Goldowitz: Thank you for the webinar! Very interesting.

Sheril Kirshenbaum: Thank you for hosting this timely conversation!

Cassie Byrd: 100% Nic!

Nic DiPalma: Thank you!

Doohyun (Richard) Sung:    Thank you!

Ryan Meyer:  Great session, thanks!

Lucas Held:   Thank you for hosting this discussion.

Lisa Dilling:    thank you!

Ben Bailey:     Fantastic

Kimberly Suda: Thank you!

Josh Trapani: thank you!

Jacqueline Howells: Bye!

Emily Costa: Thank you! Excellent conversation!