Alternative approaches to SciSIP research
There are a wide variety of alternative ways to re-imagine the SciSIP program in order to increase our understanding of the societal impacts of science, rather than simply reinforcing an ill-fitting trope with measurements and models.
1. Shift the focus of SciSIP-funded research to better understand the full range of the societal impacts of science and technology. It is also worth noting that the current distribution of funds could be radically shifted to supporting research by sociologists, anthropologists, STS scholars, historians, philosophers, ethicists, and theologians, in order to gain a more holistic picture of the relationship between science and society.
2. Focus less on investments in science (inputs), but on how science is used. Research on science policy would give equal weight to the processes of knowledge creation and use. “Demanding equal status for knowledge creation and knowledge use in science policy… locates the value and utility of scientific research in those who can make use of its results, rather than in the results themselves” (Sarewitz et all 2004, 75).
3. Draw from recent literature on alternative views of science focusing on civic engagement, social responsibility, and the limitations of scientific certainty.This literature offers a completely different view of the proper role of science policy: away from supporting the individual scientist, isolated from society, and instead toward a scientific community that is socially engaged, informed by the needs of society, and cautious in its ability to predict or control nature.
