This book opens up a new route to the study of knowledge dynamics and the sociology of knowledge. The focus is on the role of metaphors as powerful catalysts and the book dissects their role in the construction of theories of knowledge and will therefore be of vital interest to social and cognitive scientists alike.

‘Scientific advice to politics’, the ‘nature of expertise’, and the ‘relation between experts, policy makers, and the public’ are variations of a topic that currently attracts the attention of social scientists, philosophers of science as well as practitioners in the public sphere and the media. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. The new significance of ‘participation’ (...) and ‘accountability’ has motivated scholars to take a new look at the science – politics interface and to probe questions such as "What is new in the arrangement of scientific expertise and political decision-making?", "How can reliable knowledge be made useful for politics and society at large, and how can epistemically and ethically sound decisions be achieved without losing democratic legitimacy?", "How can the objective of democratization of expertise be achieved without compromising the quality and reliability of knowledge?" Scientific knowledge and the ‘experts’ that represent it no longer command the unquestioned authority and public trust that was once bestowed upon them, and yet, policy makers are more dependent on them than ever before. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance. (shrink)

not lie in the conceptual distinctions but in the perceived functions of metaphors and whether in the concrete case they are judged positive or negative. The ongoing debates reflect these concerns quite clearly~ namely that metaphors are judged on the basis of supposed dangers they pose and opportunities they offer. These are the criteria of evaluation that are obviously dependent on the context in which the transfer of meaning occurs. Our fundamental concern is indeed the transfer itself~ its prospects and (...) its limits. Looking at possible functions of metaphors is one approach to under standing and elucidating sentiments about them. The papers in this volume illustrate, by quite different examples, three basic functions of metaphors: illustrative, heuristic~ and constitutive. These functions rep resent different degrees of transfer of meaning. Metaphors are illustrative when they are used primarily as a literary device, to increase the power of conviction of an argument, for example. Although the difference between the illustrative and the heuristic function of metaphors is not great, it does exist: metaphors are used for heuristic purposes whenever "differences" of meaning are employed to open new perspectives and to gain new insights. In the case of "constitutive" metaphors they function to actually replace previous meanings by new ones. Sabine Maasen in her paper introduces the distinction between transfer and transforma tion. (shrink)

We all know what a voluntary action is - we all think we know when an action is voluntary, and when it is not. Yet, performing and action and defining it are different matters. What counts as an action? When does it begin? Does the conscious desire to perform an action always precede the act? If not, is it really a voluntary action? This is a debate that crosses the boundaries of Philosophy, Neuroscience, Psychology, and Social Science. This book brings (...) together some to the leading thinkers from these disciplines to consider this deep and often puzzling topic. The result is a fascinating and stimulating debate that will challenge our fundamental assumptions about our sense of free-will. (shrink)

Currently, the neurosciences challenge the concept of will to be scientifically untenable, specifying that it is our brain rather than our "self" that decides what we want to do. At the same time, we seem to be confronted with increasing possibilities and necessities of free choice in all areas of social life. Based on up-to-date (empirical) research in the social sciences and philosophy, the authors convened in this book address this seeming contradiction: By differentiating the physical, the psychic, and the (...) social realm, the neuroscientific findings can be acknowledged within a comprehensive framework of selves in neoliberal societies. (shrink)

A review of the scientific method. In the scientific method, results must be capable of being reproduced to be valid.

Technology takes an unprecedented position in contemporary society. In particular, it has become part and parcel of governmental attempts to manufacture life in new ways. Such ideas concerning the governance of life organize around the same contention: that technology and life are, in fact, highly interconnectable. This is surprising because if one enters the sites of techno-scientific experimentation, those visions turn out to be much frailer and by no means “in place” yet. Rather, they afford or enforce constant interfacing work, (...) a particular mode of manufacturing life, rendering disparate, sturdy, and often surprisingly incompatible things available for one another. Here, we contend that both of those aspects, pervasive rationalities of interconnectability and practices of interfacing mark the cornerstones of what we call a new techno-bio-politics of life. In order to grasp the government of life under the technological condition, we must understand how both human and non-human entities are being rendered interconnectable and re-worked through practices of interfacing. We take neuro-technology and care robotics as two illustrative cases. Our analysis shows that the contemporary government of life is not primarily concerned with life itself in its biological re-constitution but rather with life as it is interfaced with and through technology. (shrink)

Human Brain Project: Ethics Management or Proceduralization of Reflexivity? Everywhere, the reflexivity and responsibility of research and innovation is called for – the neurosciences being no exception. Undesirable side effects of scientific‐technical developments should be recognized early on and opportunities for participation by non‐scientific actors should be made available. In addition to the well‐known reflective programs such as Technology Assessment, Public Understanding of Science, Ethical Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Science, Science Communication and Citizen Science, a new program is (...) emerging: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). With the dimensions of anticipation, reflexivity, inclusiveness and responsiveness advocated here, social accountability of research has just been expanded again: factually (applying to the scientific practice of all domains), temporally (becoming more and more permanent) and socially (involving more and more actors). The following study will first reconstruct the current prominence of RRI as the dynamics of a changing relationship between science and society, then explore into the claim and reality of RRI as documented in publicly available material. The observation: While RRI at the level of its program aims at legitimacy through democratization of knowledge production, the organization of RRI demonstrates highly orchestrated bureaucratic arrangements and procedures. In the case of the Human Brain Project, it thus becomes clear that and how RRI is being put to the service of supporting neuroinformatic big science through targeted reductions: it is mainly framed as ‘ethics management’ and hardly integrated into research practice or even public discourse. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungIn massenmedialen Darstellungen wird das Hormon Oxytocin gegenwärtig als biochemische Basis von Sozialität und wirkmächtiger neuropharmakologischer Lösungsansatz für die (Wieder‑)Herstellung der gesellschaftlichen Kohäsion verhandelt. Mit Blick auf die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Hormons als „Körperhormon“ zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts soll im vorliegenden Artikel die außergewöhnliche Karriere von Oxytocin vom Regulator des Geburtsvorgangs hin zum Regulator der Gesellschaft nachgezeichnet werden. Woraus bezieht eine solch voraussetzungsvolle Behauptung ihre Intelligibilität und Akzeptabilität? Unsere Analyse des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses um Oxytocin (1906–1990), des massenmedialen Diskurses seit (...) den 1990er Jahren sowie dessen Rückwirkungen auf den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs im gleichen Zeitraum verweist auf eine Serie von Re-Konfigurationen von wissenschaftlichen Theorien und Praktiken, sowie der Konzeption der Substanz an sich. Nachdem es sich in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts etabliert, wird Oxytocin bereits in den 1950er Jahren zum Neurohormon, findet in den folgenden Jahrzehnten jedoch kaum wissenschaftliche Aufmerksamkeit. Erst im Zuge des massenmedialen Interesses für die postulierten Wirkungen des Hormons in Zusammenhang mit Liebe und Bindung gerät die Substanz zunehmend in den Fokus empirischer Forschung. Die Rezeption von Oxytocin als neurohormonelle Basis der individuellen Soziabilität speist sich zum einen aus dem massenmedialen Diskurs, zum anderen aus bereits in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts gemachten biopolitischen Verknüpfungen, die auf die Regulierung des Lebendigen abzielen, sowie aus einem technowissenschaftlichen Modus der Oxytocinforschung: an ihrem Schnittpunkt avanciert Oxytocin zum Sozialhormon, so unsere These. (shrink)

As the cognitive neurosciences set out to challenge our understanding of consciousness, the existing conceptual panoply of meanings attached to the term remains largely unaccounted for. By way of bibliometric analysis, the following study first reveals the breadth and shift of meanings over the last decades, the main tendency being a more 'brainy' concept of consciousness. On this basis, the emergence of consciousness studies is regarded as a 'trading zone' (Galison) in which experimental, philosophical and experiential accounts are dialectically engaged. (...) Outside of academic discourse, a neurocognitive concept of consciousness is embraced by popular self-help literature that sweepingly adopts this new discourse and the novel neuropharmacological tools in the self-help toolbox. Consciousness studies are hence not only the product of epistemological and methodological struggles (scientific dimension) but also part of the current re-alignments regarding the notion of consciously acting selves in society (societal dimension). (shrink)

As the cognitive neurosciences set out to challenge our understanding of consciousness, the existing conceptual panoply of meanings attached to the term remains largely unaccounted for. By way of bibliometric analysis, the following study first reveals the breadth and shift of meanings over the last decades, the main tendency being a more 'brainy' concept of consciousness. On this basis, the emergence of consciousness studies is regarded as a 'trading zone' in which experimental, philosophical and experiential accounts are dialectically engaged. Outside (...) of academic discourse, a neurocognitive concept of consciousness is embraced by popular self-help literature that sweepingly adopts this new discourse and the novel neuropharmacological tools in the self-help toolbox. Consciousness studies are hence not only the product of epistemological and methodological struggles but also part of the current re-alignments regarding the notion of consciously acting selves in society. (shrink)

How can we understand the intensifying interactions of science and society? The answers are found in part in the interdisciplinary field called science studies. This field provides us with a rich inventory of analytical approaches. It helps us explore science as a practice, a subsystem, a culture, and an institution. Its observation is that science today is part and parcel of what has come to be known as "knowledge society." Nine exemplary studies that inquire into, or are themselves examples of (...) the dynamics of scientific knowledge are included in this book. They cover issues as diverse as eugenics, climate research, and the role of historiography, and make use of different tools such as evolutionary reasoning, metaphor, and bibliometrics. Finally, they ponder the need for science to go public as well as for society to regulate knowledge and restructure universities as the building blocks of our science system. The message is that science studies can and should assume an active role in observing, reflecting, and communicating the intricate encounters of science and society today. Sabine Maasen teaches sociology at Basel University, Switzerland. Matthias Winterhager is senior researcher and coordinator of bibliometric studies at the Institute for Science and Technology Studies, University of Bielefeld, Germany. (shrink)