In this essay I argue that the autonomy of science is under threat, both at the individual and institutional level, but that the landscape of science has changed, and accordingly, the concept should be updated to reflect contemporary society. I will argue this claim based on assessment of autonomy of science over time, incorporating arguments and counterarguments. The essay will firstly define autonomy of science in the general sense, followed by a brief section outlining its philosophical justifications. Next, I will examine why it is under threat, what this means for science autonomy, and lastly, before concluding, I will discuss what can be done for the future.
The concept of autonomy of science, broadly defined in this paper as the ability to self-govern one's scientific pursuits at both the institutional and individual level, dates back 900 years to the debate about academic freedom in the first European universities, notably Bologna and Paris. Our contemporary understanding of academic freedom/autonomy is based on 19th-century German concepts of Lehrfreiheit (freedom to teach) and Lernfreiheit (freedom to learn), instituted by Wilhelm von Humboldt at the University of Berlin . Furthermore, “we date modern science from Galileo and Newton: that is, a period of about 350 years. During those years science has emerged to become the major force for social, cultural and economic transformation”.
The autonomy of science, and the freedom of academia and researchers more generally, is therefore framed as a development of ideas over centuries. But how has philosophical thinking changed over the last 50-plus years and what is the present autonomy of science landscape? Tranøy's 1976 conceptualization of scientific autonomy reflects a classical perspective and long-held assumptions: “the right of individuals and/or institutions to decide for themselves without [external] interference (from Church, State or other institutions, industrial or military) certain crucial issues concerning the conduct of inquiry, be it the acceptance, assertion, and publication of results of inquiry, or the planning and organization of it” . Similarly: 'freedom of the individual scholar... to pursue truth, wherever it leads... without fear' . In this definition autonomy is derived from a “wider set of complementary human rights”, specifically deontological moral, political and legal rights to individual freedom of speech, thought and expression.
Post World War II, individual scientists determined the choice of subjects and were responsible for the conduct of their own research. They formed part of a 'scientific community' whose 'scientific opinion' strongly influenced the range of subjects deemed ‘profitable for scientific work’. The justification for science autonomy and its governance is 'grounded in definitions of knowledge and beliefs about how it is produced... academe as a bounded territory, separate from other sectors of society, where autonomy means something close to sovereignty” . In a contrasting and qualifying view, Goldsmith articulated autonomy of science as 'a contradiction in terms”, positing “science is meaningful in terms of function or in its relations with other social phenomena”, implying that the nature of science cannot be completely autonomous due to its necessary social relationship.
Social values influence science research because science exists as a social institution: it comprises people who make decisions and interact with others, within institutions and externally. Accordingly, it has been argued that scientists should remain morally unencumbered and seek to minimize the influence of social values in their work by striving for objectivity as a self-regulatory ideal. Tranøy echoes this idea, discussing the notions of objectivity and truth, their relationship, and apparent mutual dependence: without aspiring for objectivity the pursuit of truth is an illusion.
Polanyi's ‘Republic of Science’ made the analogy of a free society, self-coordinated by mutual adjustment of individual initiatives and commitment to making the best possible contribution for efficiency, truth, and the expansion of knowledge for society. In 1975, Feyerabend articulated the concept of individualism or human freedom: that society should be free of constraint, and accordingly that scientists should follow their subjective wishes. Chalmer (1999) critiques this understanding as a ‘negative’, one-sided view of freedom and autonomy. The omitted, positive side is “the extent to which individuals have access to the means to fulfill their wishes”. While negative and positive academic freedom may appear to go hand-in-hand, a lack of resources can constrain research. The guarantee of positive freedom is worthless without the necessary resources or negative freedom to conduct research: 'academic freedom means nothing if professors cannot afford to do the research that they are supposedly free to do”. In effect, these freedoms reflect the distinction between the right to autonomy and the capacity for autonomy. The third section of this paper will discuss the reasons why the autonomy of science is under threat.
Contemporary threats to the autonomy of science can be linked to privatization of research and the increasing power of global corporations and, to some extent, public-private partnerships. Privatization has brought “new public management with research agendas and targets often being increasingly set by policymakers”. Its resource-oriented approach partners scientists, technologists & engineers in 'applied science'/ technological collaborations for economic development: 'the scientist is no longer a completely free-swimming organism, [s/]he is a national resource' .
Privatization has engendered new understandings of science and scientists: “There have been profound epistemological, structural, political and cultural changes that have challenged the assumptions underpinning the working of academic systems”. The ‘increasing complexity of modern society has seen a breaking down of boundaries between academic institutions and other knowledge locations, blurring or removing lines between university and industrial science. Professional identities have also been blurred, creating more diverse career patterns and opportunities for collaboration or possible added financial remuneration through consulting or part-time academic tenure.
There is a perceived shift from 'science in society to 'society in science', as society ‘speaks back’ to science: this is the new paradigm where authoritative knowledge now operates in the ‘agora’. Here, the university is seen as 'embedded in society, which expects it to make direct contributions to general economic and social welfare'. Science has transformed from an elitist to a mainstream activity. Traditional science motivated by intellectual curiosity has been superseded by economic imperatives whereby government, industrial, commercial and social interests 'permeate' the 'sovereignty' of academia.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In the new paradigm, competing interests have reinforced traditional threats to autonomy of science. Case examples abound in free democratic societies involving government and institutional interference in science, for example genetically modified organisms, climate change, and agriculture. Such concerning threats have parallels with historical attempts to censor scientists' free expression: the classic example of an authoritarian regime corrupting and undermining science autonomy is 'Lysenkoism' in the former Soviet Union, which involved suppression of Mendelian genetics and other sound biology. Section four will identify and examine what this threat against the autonomy of science means.
Privatization of science has effectively broken the link between institutional and individual autonomy: “as institutions, universities are more autonomous, while their academic members are increasingly less able to direct their working lives” . University scientists have more (positive) freedom than their private sector or research institute counterparts, the latter being bound by research ownership and accommodating their employers' interests. Depending on context, privatization may reduce a scientist's autonomy, for example, those engaged with industry/the military may face greater pressures to compromise scientific values than colleagues in academia. However, university scientists working in cross-sectoral collaborative projects may face similar challenges to their autonomy.
There are several concerns about the impact of privatization on science autonomy. Critically, it compromises the integrity of science by allowing “secrecy of research results, distortion of the viewpoints and claims of academic researchers, and distortion of the research agenda” . It also impels the merging or abolition of departments, stemming from cuts to publicly funded universities or research institutes. Krige expresses the extreme notion, that universal subordination to institutions would mean that, “science as such must collapse”. While this claim may be exaggerated, it highlights the fundamental shift taking place: 'authority based on expertise, or the distinctive norms and practices of knowledge-based regimes is called into question.
While the new autonomy of science paradigm presents some challenges, alternatively, too much institutional autonomy can mean that society does not contribute. Bryden & Mittenzwei give the example of State level institutions such as the UK and U.S governments, where “participation is neither expected not [nor] wanted: the focus is on the power and indeed right of representatives to take decisions irrespective of public opinion and debate”. Furthermore, “policymakers are not neutral beings, always or inevitably acting with the public good in mind”; they “pick and choose the evidence that suits their immediate and usually short-term purposes. In the absence of a responsible and critical media, they can do so with little fear of challenge”.
This paper’s fifth section will identify what can be done given the changed nature of science autonomy. Are there more robust ways of thinking about it now that scientists and institutions “are working in a changed ideological framework”?
Maintaining ‘strong academic institutions with strong academic values’ is key to autonomy. However, as Clark reminds us: 'the strength of universities has traditionally been in their basic units and that one reason why they have become pivotal institutions of contemporary societies is the intellectual force of academics'. Scientists, because of their expertise, are best qualified to address the global implications of scientific breakthroughs: their increased role in research management and policy formulation is imperative.
To redress the identified 'imbalance' between institutional and individual scientists' autonomy and provide a 'check' to Government control, society needs to be more involved in science. Science benefits society and so society must be 'incorporated into' science. Popper in 1972 said, “science is essentially critical”. While this critical perspective should remain and continue to be protected, science does require a more integrated approach that includes the critical inputs of society. The strengthening of participatory democracy can be pursued by scientists and institutions working with civil society movements to better inform public policy debate. Additionally, researchers need to develop relationships with the media so that the public is more aware of scientific knowledge and thus empowered to act politically. A 'responsible and critical media has an important role to play in informing the public about the findings of research and debating its implications for policy.
Pro-autonomy legislation regulating different levels of science constitutes a more direct means to preserve an appropriate balance between protection of individual and institutional autonomy. For example, in 2009 the Norwegian Parliament proposed legislation to clarify the right to negative academic freedom (in publishing findings) of non-university researchers, following a dispute between researchers and management at the then Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (NILF). More broadly, the 2009 European Union Revision (Lisbon) Treaty states (Article II-73), 'the arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected” . It further seeks to facilitate a European research area in which researchers, scientific knowledge, and technology circulate freely.
A broad spectrum of recent and historical literature provides extensive evidence confirming a paradigm shift in the autonomy of science and expresses fundamental concerns about the threat to autonomy arising from privatization. I conclude that the perceived threat to the autonomy of science is one that will require continuous scrutiny by individuals and institutions, to ensure the new paradigm forms a positive relationship for science and society. It is crucial that in the era of powerful global corporations, “academics and their institutions... should regard themselves as protagonists in the struggle for redefinition and sustenance of academic autonomy”.
More than the ideals of freedom are risked by threats to the autonomy of science and by failing to incorporate society into science. The significant and interdependent problems our world is facing require all-encompassing research, without boundaries and dividing lines. Now more than ever we require collective learning between science and society, public and private. Universities and scientific institutes do crucial research toward problem reformulation and novel thinking, without which we cannot hope to combat human and ecological threats to our existence.
Stuck on your essay?
