mNatt..p“1101-12 c111 5211.113341] 1.1?
2N?“ 13?? 11:1. :31“: ~212311113~ 1.151111 51:11-11:31-3‘1”:

DUCT-3H LCAND. 3; 3.3331» 333- '3'? 37“ 1:32:3733

(”‘1
an?

E

3319532 31:33“ 3'3““;3 Boga-3;» a)? M. .u.

M3CH3 36A“. 41....5 3.3393 3‘15: F3537

a

5

C33!“ ’35 339§h§3 3’: 3'33 “31:33003

‘3 @136

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

FLIBRARY

' Michigan 3””
Univerflq

 

 

CONCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE AND ITS INTERRELATIONSHIP

WITH SOCIETY: DOCTORAL CANDIDATES IN THE SCIENCES

By

Christopher K. Vanderpool

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Sociology
1966

ABSTRACT
CONCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE AND ITS INTERRELATIONSHIP
WITH SOCIETY: DOCTORAL CANDIDATES IN THE SCIENCES

by Christopher K. Vanderpool

Given the lack of a comparative perspective in the sociology
of science and the lack of an adequate theoretical foundation for
comparative research, the present endeavor is a search for con-
cepts and hypotheses for future comparative research. Doctoral
candidates from.mathematics, physics, biology and psychology in a
Midwestern University compose the population of this study.
Interviews were conducted on the conceptions of the nature of
science, the norm of commonality and internationalism, and the
relationships of science and society held by these future sci-
entists and the manner in.which they perceive the present and
future roles of scientists within the scientific community and
society.. The results raise issues that can be resolved through

future comparative and cross-cultural research.

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Historical Background. Since the initial development
of the sociology of science as a hybrid of the sociology of
knowledge and of the philosophy and history of science, science
has been viewed as a social system.by the four principal theo-
rists in the sociology of science: Robert K. Merton, Talcott
Parsons, Bernard Barber, and Norman W. Storer. In this pioneering
effort, "Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century
England",1 and his classic essay, "Science and the Social Order",2
Merton Emphasized that science is a social institution“which is
related to other institutions in society and which is characterb
ized by four institutional imperatives within its "autonomous"
normative structure: universalism, commonality or communism,
disinterestedness, and organized scepticism. Expanding upon the
theoretical basis provided by Merton, Parsons dichotomized the
normative structure of science into two sets of norms that go-
verned 1) the pursuit of scientific knowledge (empirical validi-
ty, logical clarity, logical consistency, and the generality of
the ”principle" involved), and 2) the occupational role of the
scientist (universalism, affective neutrality, specificity,
achievement orientation, and the institutionalization of the
scientist with reference to the collectivity). 3 Bernard Barber
attempted to synthesize the works of Merton and Parsons by pro-
viding several empirical referents for their generalizations
while contributing to the theory of the sociology of science by

examining the social functions of science and the consequences

 

2
for science and society of the relationship between science
and society.“ Norman W. Storer, in the most recent contribup
tion to the sociology of science, has explicated further the
internal structure of science as an "autonomous" system.of
exchange governed by rewards and sanctions.5

Problems in the Sociology of Science: Toward a Compara-

 

tive Perspective. At the institutional level of analysis, the

 

sociology of science focuses on the relationships between science
and other institutions in societies in which science is a "visi-
ble", more or less differentiated component of the social struc-
ture. Substantively, studies in the sociology of science illumi-
nate the nzture of these relationships and their effects on sci-
ence and on the beliefs and expectations of the members of the
scientific community, in particular, and on the social structure,
in general. Theoretically, they can contribute to our understan-
ding of the process of institutionalization, the systemic linkages
between institutions, and the dynamics of total societies.6 Howb
ever, as has been previously noted, the theoretical body of li-
ternature in the sociology of science has primarily focused on the
internal structure of the scientific community and has only
briefly touched upon the interrelationships between science and
society. Thusly, the "autonomous" normative structure has been
rigorously defined, elaborated, and reformulated in light of
existing social theory. But the delimitation of the system»
boundaries of the scientific community, the search for the sta-

temic linkages between science and society, and the effects of

 

 

 

 

3
these relationships on science, the members of the scientific
community, and society have not been theoretically or sub-
stuntively“articulated.

Secondly, the theoretical.framework of the sociology of
science has been developed out of the Western case and has
assumed implicitly that the nature of the scientific community
and science is essentially the same no matter“what the societal
context and is to a certain degree " a historical". Yet, in the
historical context, we have comparative cases for the study of
the relationships between science and other institutions, for
example, Needham's classic work on the deve10pment of science
in China and the structural changes that occured as a result
of the relationship between science and the political bureaus
cracy.7 we can study the international character of science
which has been fundamental to it all through its history --
Alexandria in the Hellenistic world, Baghdad, and Azerbaiijan
were centers of international "communities" before the Middle
Ages8 -- and the special problems posed for sociologists, who
use societies as units of analysis, by an institution with a
universal normative structure. The establishment othhe "sci-
entific role" in Enrope, events such as the establishment of
communication and transportation networks by French and Eng-
lish scientists during the 18th century while their nations
were at war with each other,10 the "liquidation of the entire
structure of French science" by the Jacobin convention in 1793

and the erection of a set of scientific institutions-~Ees Ecoles

11
Centrales, L'Ecole Normale, L‘EcolePolytechniquell -- provide
the historical background for understanding the institutionap
lization of science in'Western culture.

In addition to the study of historical social structures
and the development of science in the West, contemporary West-
ern societies provide another context for research in the
sociology of science, e.g., the relationships between science
and the polity and the impact of political control over the
allocation of resources for basic and applied research, and
the study of systemic linkages between institutions and the
possible formation of new institutional structures. The de-
veloping nations provide still another, and neglected, cone
text for the study of science and society. How is science insti-
tutionalized? What are, or what will be, the effects of the pro-
cess of the institutionalization of science in the developing
nations: 1) on the structure of science and the members of the
scientific community within each nation-state, and 2) on the
structures of other institutions and culture within each nation-
state? What is the nature of the international scientific comp
munity in the modern world, and will it effect and / or be effected
by the process of develOpment, or'modernization in these nation-
states, and by the emergence of the nations of the world into a
"post-modern" world? These are among the more salient problems
for sociologists of science.

Given the lack of a comparative perspective in the sociology

of science and the lack of an adequate theoretical foundation for

5
comparative research, the present research endeavor was
constructed as an exploratory study, that is, a search
for concepts and hypotheses to form a basis from which
the scientific community could be viewed comparatively
in future research. Utilizing the existing theory in the
sociology of science as an initial point of departure,
emphasis has been placed on the norms of science that govern
not only the search for knowledge by“members of the scienti-
fic community, but also those that regulate their role intera
relationships within the scientific community, and between
science and the other institutions of our society. Secondly,
particular attention has been paid to the norm of interna-
tionalism, since the scientific community is an illuminating
case of relationships across societies throughout history.
Hence, we are concerned with the conceptions of the nature
of science, the international scientific'community, and the
relationships of science and society held by“members of the
scientific community and the manner in which they perceive
their roles within the scientific community and society.
Through these means, it is hoped that a greater understanding
of the interrelationship of science and society“and the inter»

national scientific community can be attained.

v a

6
METHODOLOGY
Population. we selected for our population doctoral

 

candidates in.the physical, biological, and social sciences
for practical as well as theoretical reasons. Theoretically,
the graduate student population is being socialized to the
norms of science that will govern their search for knowledge
and their relationships within and outside of the scientific
community. As participants in a particular culture, they
should reflect, cognitively and behaviorally, American culture,
the norms of science, and the relationships between science and
American institutions. Practically, the population was chosen
because of status-equality and ease of establishing rapport be-
tween interviewer and interviewee. The pre-test verified our
feeling that status difference between senior scientists and
Master's level graduate students would affect not only the
rapport between interviewer and interviewee, but also the type
and quality of data obtained.

Stratified Sample. The pre-test revealed that there ap-
pears to be a "continuum” within the sciences of disciplines
based on the "degree of involvement" of the disciplines in
society, in terms of the dependency of the discipline on re-
sources allocated by other institutions and in terms of the
nature of the scientists's role in society. The continuum
ranges from.mathematics to the social sciences. .Mathematicians

dealing with a highly abstract subject-matter feel they do not

7

depend on society for resources--a2Ll they need, as one
mathematician phrases it, is a "cigar and a rocking chair"
to pursue a problem. Physical and biological scientists believe
that they depend heavily on outside sources for facilities,
equipment, and financial support to conduct their research.
Biological and social scientists, as students of the human
organism, and of social and psychological phenomena, express
a more involved relationship with society. Studies of human
and animal organisms, genetics, and of social and epycholo-
gical phenomena require the experimental manipulation of human
beings and animals, but social and biological scientists con-
tend that they are restricted in their pursuit of knowledge
by the laws, moral codes, and ethical precepts of our society.
Research that might be crucial for the advancement of know-
ledge often cannot be undertaken because it would involve the
inhumane treatment of human and animal subjects. In addition,
social scientists must enter into social relations with their
subject-matter, while mathematicians and physical scientists
can pursue problems by manipulating symbols and physical objects.
With the idea of exploring the significance of "degree of
involvement" in society for science, we sampled from four dis-
ciplinesumathematics, physics, biology, and psychology. Our
sample of psychologists was divided into two groups-mclinicians

and experimentalists. This division was made on the basis of the

 

 

8

continuum revealed in the pre-test. The psychologists in-
terviewed felt that the clinicians were closer in orien-
tation to the social sciences and more involved in society,
while experimentalists were perceived to be more akin to
physical and biological scientists.

The research design called for a non-probability sample
of N=h8, twelve respondents from each of the four disciplines.
To draw our sample, we obtained lists from the departments of
mathematics, physics, biology, and psycholog at a large Mid-
west university of alldoctoral candidates registered for the
1966 summer session. Except in mathematics, we randomly se-
lected twelve names from each list, made our contacts by te-
lephone and arranged interview sessions. Only six doctoral
candidates were registered in the department of mathematics
and we tried to secure all six-«we were able to interview
five. After randomly selecting alternates from a list of eight-
een doctoral candidates in physics, eleven physicists were inter-
viewed only in biolog and psychology were we successful in ob-
taining twelve respondents. The total sample, then, was an N of ho.

Technique and Coding. Because of the exploratory nature

 

of our research, we felt that the open-ended interview would
be the most appropriate data-gathering technique for sensi-

tizing us to the important sociological variables that need to

 

9

be considered in a comparative sociology of science. Given
the lack of an adequate theoretical foundation from which
meaningful questions could be formulated, and the lack of
similar empirical studies, the open-ended interview schedule
seemed the most feasible instrument for achieving the research
objectives.

The coding schema was established by using the empirical
categories generated in the responses to the first series of
interviews. Some changes were made in the course of our re-
research until a fairly stable set of categories were developed
which allowed us to code directly during the interviews.

Standardizing the Interview Process. Since the data for

 

this study were collected by two researchers working indepen-
dently, certain standardizing procedures were necessary to in-
sure data comparability. During the pro-test period we inter-
viewed respondents together, independently, and with our fel-
low researcher present but not participating in the interview.
These session apprised each of us to the interview "style" of
the other. An open-ended interview schedule was constructed,
and several additional interviews were conducted separately,
taped, and compared. The final interview schedule was construc-
ted with each question typed out in full, with words to be em-
phasized underlined, and probes specified. Tests of the canpa—

rability of our interview techniques, our use of probes, an

94

K)

 

10
data collected were made during the pre-test period as well.
as at the research site. By the time we began our study, the
interview procedures were sufficiently comparable to insure
data comparability.

The Interview Schedule. The interview schedule was di-

 

vided into three sections: "World view" «conceptions of sci-
ence, of the relationships between science and society, and
of the future ; reference and membership groups 3 and the struc-
ture of the university. The original interview schedule con-
tained seventy-seven questions. During the course of our re-
search fifteen questions were eliminated because of over 13p,
because they were poorly formulated and confusing to our re-
spondents, or because they proved to be meaningless for our
respondents. No questions were added. The interview schedule-
we took into the field is included in the appendix-whose
questions which were eliminated are asterisked.

This essay will concentrate on the results obtained from
the first section of the interview schedule, the "world view".
The conceptions of science, the membership criterion of the
scientific commmity, and the process of self-identification
as scientists will be presented. Then confonnity to the norms
of commonality and internationalism will be discussed. The fi-
nal section deals with the conceptions of the interrelationship

of science and society in the present and in the future.

CON CEPTIONS OF SCIENCE

Crucial to an understanding of the institution of science and
its interrelationship with the other institutions of the social
structure are the conceptions of the nature of science held by the
members of the scientific community. They form the basis on which
scientists are oriented to the collectivity and the perspective
from which they view the systemic linkages between the institutions
of our society. Moreover these conceptions define the nature and
purpose of the scientific community and the role of its participants,
12
and delimits its boundaries. These internalized values establish
the criterion by which members of the scientific conmnmity evaluate
their position and that of others within and outside the collectivity.
Before an account can be given of the interrelationship of science and
society, then, these conceptions of the nature of science must be discussed.
Nature of Science and the Membersth Criterion of the Scientific

Community. Norman W. Storer maintains that creativity (the ability
to produce novelty that is meaningful. and important to the creator
and others) is the essential element within the conception of the
nature of science held by the members of the scientific community.13
He points out that it

o o o 13 a scientific ideal and o o o the normative

structure of science is oriented toward this ideal

rather than toward a description of empirical reality.

. . . . So long as the interaction among scientists

places a premium upon creativity, we may assume

that they tend--while in the role of the scientist

to accept this as their major professional goal.

The importance of creativity is, in effect, built

into their universe of discourse; in order even to

converse as a scientist, one must implicitly ac-
cept this goal. 1&1

12

Hence, if creativity is the scientific ideal toward which the
normative order of science is oriented, it should be a key element
in the definition of the nature of science and of the membership
crtierion within the scientific community held by all scientists.
Whether or not this theoretical statement is applicable to the sample
can be shown by the range of responses to two questions: 1) what is
science?, and 2) what makes a.man a scientist?

The doctoral candidates define the nature of science either
as a method, a study of the physical or natural world, or a creative
cognitive style of inquiry. Science as a.method is regarded as a
"systematic process of reasoning which starts from axioms and deduces
from these."15 Irrespective of discipline, 37.5% conceive of science
as a method of inquiry. A.higher proportion, h2.5%; view science as a study
of the physical or natural world, that is "a search for objective knowledge of
physical and social reality." From all the disciplines, only two physicists
regard science as a only a study of physical reality and not of the natural
world (physical and social reality). The remaining 20% of these future
scientists agree with Storer's theoretical position by considering science
as "being creative in an objective search for knowledge." In other words,
science is a creative cognitive style.

Viewing the results from the perspective of the disciplines sampled,
63% of the physicists define science as a study of the physical or natural
World. This percentage is larger than in any other discipline for this cat-
egory of responses. MOst of the experimental andclinical psychologists
conceive of science as a method. Incontradistinction, 32% of biologists
view science as a creative cognitive style. Mathematicians are equally

divided between regarding science as a method and as a study of the

Table l:

Conceptions
of Science:

Scientific
Method

Study of
Physical or
Natural World

Creative Cog—
nitive Style

Total

Table 2:

Conceptions
of the'Mem—
bership Cri-
terion in the
Scientific
Community

Scientific
Method

Creative Cog—
nitive Style

Other

Total

13

Disciplines and the Conceptions of Science

Mathe—
matics

40%

40%

20%

 

100%
(N=5)

Disciplines

Physics

27%

63%

 

100%
(N=1l)

Biology Experi-
mental
Psychology

25%

42%

100%

50%

 

100%

(N=l2) (N26)

Clinical
Psychology

66%

17%

17%

 

100%
(N=6)

Disciplines and the Conceptions of the Membership

 

Criterion in the Scientific Community

 

Mathe—
matics

Disciplines

Physics

Biology Experi—
mental
Psychology

100%
(N=12)

66%

17%

17%

100%
(N=6)

Clinical
Psychology

Total

37.5%

42.5%

20.0%

 

100.0%
(N=40)

Total

1%
physical or natural world.
When one compares the above results to those obtained from a
search for the membership criterion of scientific community (what
makes a man a scientist), a change occurs in the range of responses.
Sixty-two pereent of the sample maintain that the use of the scientific
method determines one's inclusion within the scientific community. Physi-
cists and biologists exhibit the greatest changes in their responses, while
the clinical and experimental psychologists remain relatively stable.
[Mathematicians conceive of the membership criterion either as a creative
cognitive style or as the use of the scientific method. Hence, the
greater the emphasis placed by a discipline on difining science as a
method, the greater the equivalence between the conceptions of the nature
of science and of the membership criterion of the scientific community.
The stability of the psychologists' responses are a function of exposure
to a common frame of reference early in the process of socialization to
the profession. Even though there is a considerable amount of friction
between clinicians and experimentalists at the graduate and professional
levels, the majority of psychologists are initially socialzied to the same
set of propositions about the nature of science and the scientific
community. As one psycholOgist stated,
I cannot think of any introductory course in
psychology which does not emphasize that psycho-
logy and the other social sciences are sciences
by virtue of their use of the scientific method.
Whoever heard of courses in chemistry or'physics
that explain what the scientific method is? We're
more concerned about peOple not calling us scientists,
than going out and doing science.
This also explains why psychologists tend to define science as a

method or a creative cognitive style rather than a study of the natural

15
or physical world and consider the former as the membership criterion
within the scientific community.

The absence of the emphasis on defining science and the scientific
method in the early stages of the education of future scientists in the
other disciplines are partially responsible, then, for the discrepan-
cies in the responses of bioligists, physicists, and mathematicians be-
twen.Table l and 2. The high percentage of agreement within each
table, however, implies that there are certain beliefs commonly shared
by them regardless of specialization. For the physicists, it may be
that their agreement over a definition of science is a product of the
subject matter they are engrossed in and the emphasis placed by text-
books and teachers on the physical or natural world as the proper realm
of their'pursuit of knowledge. With a different stress and subject
matter, the same may also apply to the mathematicians and biologists.

Viewing the results from an aggregate perspective, there is a
considerable difference between the manner in which the respondents
define science and Specify the membership criterion of the scientific
community. In the former, the object of science is emphasized; the
method of scientific inquiry in the latter. Creatifity is a crucial
factor in the conseptions of science of only a.minority of the re-
spondents. Hence, it is not the scientific ideal toward which the
majority of these doctoral candidates are orientated.

Self-identification as Scientists. Sixty-eight percent of the

 

sample consider themselves members of the scientific community. The
most frequent rationale for their self-identification as scientists
pertain to their evaluation of their performance of the scientific role
as established by their conception of the membership criterion.Within

the scientifc community. Only 10% of the respondents, two in Biology

 

 

l6
and two in Clinical Psychology, do not regard themselves as scientists.

The biologists, who specialized in taxonomy, doibt the corres-
pondence of the taxonomic method and the scientific method. Since
experimentation is regarded by them as the essential core of the
scientifci method, they perceive the classification of biological
phenomena in a logical system.as peripheral to science. The clinical
psychologists, on the other hand, assert that the subject matter they
are concerned with and the Specific methods utilized by their disci-
pline are in conflict with the nature of science. As one psychologist
stated,

No, I am not a scientist because I'm.in clinical psychology.

It is not a science, but an art of understanding people.

Secondly, in the area that I am.in, one does not adopt the

scientific method in studying human phenomena.

In every discipline, several doctoral candidates rank themselves
as aspiring scientists. They believe that they have not asquired
sufficient command over the tools of their discipline to function in
the scientific role. In several cases, these aspiring scientists
indicate that they have not met one of the ends of science, i.e., they
have not contributed to the growth of scientific knowledge, because of
a lack of ability in using the method of scientific inquiry. Over
half of the mathematical classify themselves within this category and
foresee the continuation of this role past their doctoral degree. Possibly by
the time they have finished post-doctoral training, they will have ac-
quired the necessary ability to function in the role of a scientist.

Underlying the self-identification of the doctoral candidates

with the role of a scientist, then, is their evaluation of their use

of the scientific method. It is their criterion of membership within

17

the scientific community. Figure l portrays this process of self-
identificiation. The degree to which an individual regards his
discipline or Specialization as using the scientific method in its
research and judge his ability with the scientific method as adequate
determines his self-identification as a scientist. If these are OOH!
gruent with the criterion of membership within the scientific community,
he will identify positively with the role of a scientist. 0n the other
hand, if

Figure l: Self-identification as Scientists:

Congruence of Discipline or Specialization and

Ability with or use of the Scientific Method and
the membershipACriterion of the Scientific Community*

 

 

 

 

Discipline or Ability with or use
Self-identification Specialization of the Scientific

as Scientists: method
Positive + +
Aspiring + -
Negative

Number of Cases:

Positive ---------- 27
Aspiring ---------- 9
Negative ---------- h
Total 'EB

*A "+" implies congruence with conception of the membership criterion of
the scientific community, while a "-" indicates incongruence.

he considers his discipline or Specialization as congruent but judges

his ability with the scientific method as inadequate at the moment, he

will perceive his position within the scientific community as that of an
aspiring scientist. Finally, if he regards his discipline or Specialization
as incogruent and believes that he does not use the scientific method, he

‘will negatively identify with the role of a scientist.

18
COMMONALITY AND INTERNATIONALISM

In the introductory remarks of this essay, the elements of the
normative structure of science, as conceptualized by Merton, Barber,
Parsons, and others, were outlined. Two of these norms are common-
ality and internationalism. Commonality may be defined as ". . . the
non-technical and extended sense of common ownership of goods. . ."16
It requires that every scientific finding becomes part of the cumulap
tive boey of scientific knowledge. The norm.of internationalism, on the
other hand, prescribes that all scientists recognize the international
character of science, that is, the transcendence of the scientific
community across cultural and political boundaries. It demands that all
individuals who perform.the role of a scientist to: 1) be considered as
members of the scientific community regardless of their religious, ethnic,
and racial origins and their citizenship in a nation-state, and thusly,
2) share in the cumulative body of scientific knowledge.

Theoretically at the ideal level, these two norms are interrelated.
If internationalism exists, it requires a free flow of communication
betwen scientists throughout the world. On the other hand, if commonality
exists, it infers the incorporation of scientific findings into the
corpus of scientific knowledge by all scientists. A violation of either
of these interrelated norms, then, is theoretically a voilation of the
other.
Normative Conformity. Conformity to the norm.of commonality can be.
measured by the responses of the doctoral candidates to two questions.
They were asked: 1) to ascertain what is the rold of the scientist

in wartime, and 2) to express their views on secrecy within the scientific

19
community.

Responses to the first question fall into one of two categories.
Some doctoral candidates assert that scientists should maintain the
same role performed by them in peacetime, while others recommend a
supportive role in the war effort. Continuance of the same role in
wartime as in peacetime is perceived to be conformity to the norm of
commonality; for a supportive role necessitates secrecy which, as Merton
points out, is a violation of this norm.17 The endorsement of secrecy
as a response to the second question, then, is regarded as nonconformity
to the norm of commonality, If a respondent maintains that secrecy Should
not exist at anytime within the scientific community, his or her response
is judged as compliance to the norm.

Aggregate results reveal a tendency towards nonconformity with re-
ference to the role of scientists in wartime. Fiftybfive percent of the
sample believe that scientists should perform a supportive role in the war effort.
There is, however, a definite gap between disciplines in conformity to
comonality. Both the clinical and experimental psychologists conform to
the norm. Mathematics, physics, and biology, on the other hand, have the
highest frequencies of nonconformity. The sample from these disciplines
contend that since their research can be applied militarily, scientists
should perform.supportive roles in the war effort. The difference in con-

formity and nonconformity between psychology and the other disciplines, then,

is a result of the military potential of the research conducted by the dis-

ciplines.

During the Second WOrld'War, the government relied heavily on the

research of mathematicians, psysicists, and biologists to preserve the

nation's military superiority over the enemy. Physical and biological

21

Table 3: Disciplines and Conformity to the Norm of Commonality:
The Role of Scientists in Wartime and Secrecy*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disciplines
Mathe- Physics Biology Experi— Clinical Total
matics mental Psychology
Ps cholo‘
The Role of y gy
Scientists
in Wartime:
+ 20% 27% 42%' 67% 83% 45%
- 80% 73% 58% 33% 17% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(N25) (N211) (N212) (N26) (N26) (N240)
Secrecy:
+ 60% % 42% 67% 33% 38%
— 40% 91% 58% 33% 67% 62%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(N25) (N211) (N212) (N26) (N26) (N240)
* A "+" indicates conformity to the norm of commonality and a "—" nonconformity.

Table 4: Military Potential and Conformity to the Norm of Commona—
lity: The Role of Scientists in Wartime and Secrecy*

 

 

 

Military Potential Military Potential
High Low High Low
The Role of Secrecy:

Scientists
in Wartime:

+ 32% 75% + 32% 50%

- 68% 25% - . 68% 50%

Total 100% 100% 100% l00%

(N228) (N212) (N228) (N212)

= _.74; x2: 8.09, 02 —.36; n.s.

d.f.= l, p .01 . .
* Throughout this essay, Yule's Q will be used as a measure of assoc1ation.
for an explanation of its meaning and the formula for its computation, see
Morris Zelditch, Jr., A Basic Course in Sociological Statistics, New York. .
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1959, pp. 168—171. For an example of its use in
a study in the sociology of science, see Warren 0. Hagstrom, The SClentlflc

Community, New York: Basic Books, 1965.

21
scientists were recruited by the military in greater numbers than the social
scientists.18 Since the war, they have received a greater amound of fed-
eral grants to support their research. The majority of these funds were
obtained through federal granting agencies who in turn received five-sixths
of their appropriations from the military.19 If the amount of funds
obtained directly and indirectly from the military and the number of
scientists participating in the military institutions are used as indices
of military potential, the research of’mathematicians, physicists, and
biologists have a high potential for military application and the psycholo-
gists a lOW'potential.

When the disciplines are divided by this distinction, a measure of
association of -.7l+ is obtained indicating that military potential is neg-
atively correlated with conformity to the norm of commonality with refer-
ence to the role of scientists in wartime. To a lesser extent, it is also
negatively correlated to commonality in the question on secrecy.

Sixtystwo percent of the sample, regardless of disciline, approve
of secrecy. Again those disciplines having high military potential deviate
from the norm of commonality to a greater extent than those having low
military potential. Across disciplines, however, the doctoral candidates
admit that theoretically and ideally there Should be conformity to the norm
of commonality, but at the practical level they contend this is impossible.
Pressure from within and outside the scientific community produce nonconformity.

The increased size of the scientific community and the competitive
spirit, created through the great emphasis placed on publications as an

index of contribution to scientific knowledge, lead to a fear of being antici-

pated on the part of the respondents. They feel it necessary to cover their

research in a cloak of secrecy to prevent other scientists from "scooping"

22

the results or their experiments and thusly reaping the scientific
rewards that are entitled to them

For reasons of international prestige and self-reservation,
these future scientists believe that society pressures scientists
to deviate from the norm of commonality. As a result of it tremen-
dous applied social value, science has become a "commodity" in the
ideological race for the scarce resource of international prestige.
Not only do sicieties wish to enjoy the comforts made possible by
the technological innovations created in and through science, but they
‘want their own political boundaries. It is a "game of 'one-upsmanShip'
in which everyone counts hOW'many Nobel Peace Prize wimmers he has in
his corner." This also applies to research that has military potential.
Since some nations seek to maintain not only an adequate defense system
but a superior one; nothing could be more dangerous to the selfpresser-
vation of a nation than the communication of the results of scientific
experiments that might enable an enemy to develop a greater warehouse
of destructive weapons. Hence, the doctoral cnadidates believe that there
are restrictions placed on the flow of communication to scientists of other
nations and pressures placed on the nation's scientific community to san-
ction the labeling of certain research as "top-secret".

As marked earlier, a violation of the norm of commanality implies
a violation of the norm.of internationalism. The results presented
above indicate a tendency of deviation from the former norm and greater

non—conformity in those disciplines with a high military potential. This

trend should continue to exist, then, with reference to the norm of inter-

nationalism.

 

23

The responses of the doctoral candidates to two questions can
be used as an index of conformity to the norm of international
scientific conferences should be held during waritme. .A "no" re-
sponse to either of these questions is viewed as a deviation from
the norm and a "yes" response as conformity.

None out of ten conform to the norm of internationalism.when
they posit the existence of an international community of scientists.

To a minority, this international body includes only those scientists
involved in research on a specific problem, and/or within one area of
specialization or discipline, or only the elites of discipline. The
majority, hwoever, perceive the international community as spanning all
disciplines and specializations and including all scientists. In the I
case, the primary function of this international scientific community is
the transfer of information between scientists and the addition of new
findings to the body of scientific knowledge.

According to the doctoral candidates, international communication
enables scientists to be aware of other scientists who are working on
similar problems, averts the needless repetition of discoveries, and
acts as a stimulus to the growth of science. In addition, it serves as a.means of
cohesion within a discipline or specialization by preventing the isolation of
its members, establishing agreement over a classificatory system of con-
cepts, and focusing the attention of its members on a common set of problems.

'With reference to the maintenance of international scientific
conferences during wartime, aggregate results reveal that nine out of ten
conform to the norm of internationalism, They endorse these internat-

ional meetings on the grounds that: 1) if these meetings are not held, the

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Disciplines and Conformity to the Norm of Internationalism:
Existence of an International Scientific Community and the
Maintenance of International Scientific Conferences in Wartime
Disciplines
Mathe— Physics Biology Experi- Clinical Total
matics mental Psychology
Existence Psychology
of an In—
ternational
Scientific
Community:
+ 100% 100% 92% 83% 100% 95%
_ --_ _-_ 8% 17% ——— 5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(N:5) (erl) (N212) (N:6) (Nré) (N240)
Maintenance
of Interna—
tional Sci—
entific Con—
ferences in
Wartime:
+ 60% 82% 100% 100% 83% 87%
- 40% 18% -—— —-- 17% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(NZS) (N=ll) (N=12) (N=6) (N=6) (N=40)
Table 6: Military Potential and Conformity to the Norm of Interna-

Existence of
International
Scientific
Community:

 

+ 96% 92%

- 4% 8%
Total 100% 100%
(N=28) (N=l2)

 

tionalism: Existence of an International Scientific Com—
munity and the Maintenance of International Scientific
Conferences in Wartime

 

Military Potential
High Low

 

Military Potential

 

High
Maintenance of
International
Scientific
Conferences in
Wartime:
+ 86%
— 14%
100%
(N=28)

Q: —.29; n.s.

Low

92%

8%

 

100%
(N=l2)

 

 

25

progress of science will be jeopardized due to the restrictions
placed on international scientific communication; and 2) the maintenance of
these meetings will assist the efforts to establish peace by providing
channels of communication into the warring nations. The nonconforming
minority oppose this viewpoint. They believe that Open communication
between scientists will lead to the diffusion of scientific findings
to the enemy and be harmful to ournation's security. Only if restrictions
are placed on the type of information disseminated will they agree to
the establishment and maintenance of international scientific conferences
in‘wartime.

To both questions on internationalism, then, there is conformity
to the norm, As a result, military potential is not negatively correlated to
the norm of internationalism.to the same degree as it was with the norm
of commonality. It has a positive correlation of +.h2 in one instance and
a slight negative correlation of -.29 in the second. Those disciplines
with a high military potential, moreover, conform to the norm of inter-
nationalism with almost the same frequencies as these disciplines with
a lOW'military potential. It goes without saying that these results are
contradictory to those obtained with reference to conformity to the norm

of commonality.

 

 

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

To those doctoral candidates, the primary role of science is
the pursuit of knowledge. The scientist searches for the answers
to questions derived from the theoretical paradigms of his discipline
or specialization. This quest, in turn, transforms these paradigms
and raises new questions that must be answered if knowledge is to be
cultivated. The indirect hyhproducts of this scientific role, however,
are social roles andinputs to the other institutions of society. These
future scientists maintain that these roles andinputs are secondary to the
primary role of science and are established by society for science. Within
this perspective, they perceive the interrelationship of science and
society.

The Social Role of Science: Public Appreciation and Scientific

ngularization. The doctoral candidates trichotomize the role of

 

science in society into the following divisions: 1) technical, 2) social,
3) ideological. Sixtyafive percent of the sample maintain that science
performs a technical role in society. The ideological and social roles
are perceived as consequences of the technical role. They attribute this domin-
ance of the technological implications of science to the advanced devel-
opment of the physical sciences and the ability of applied scientists
to transform.the solutions to problems of a theoretical nature to those of
a practical nature. Secondly, the demands of the government, the economy,
and the family for technological innovations in.wartime and in peace
enable the scientific role of science to be overshadowed by the technical
role of science.

.As a result, they hold that the general public in our society gives

increased recognition to the scientist for the wrong reasons. Seventy-eight

 

 

27
percent of the respondents, regardless of discipline, give qualified
affirmative responses when asked if they believe that the scientist
is appreciated in our society. They maintain that the general public
values the scientist in so far as he is able to contribute to further
technological innovations. As long as the scientist continues to per-
form his technical role, our society will perpetuate its monetary and
social rewards to the scientific community. If the scientist's tech-
nological usefulness ceases, this appreciation will also disappear. For when
society views the scientist without his technological garb, he is seen
as a strange creature with unusual interests and habits who lives in an
ivory tower and belongs there. As one physicist stated, "it is a sterile
hero worship. The public doesn't know what it admires." If the scientist
attempts to perform any other role besides that which is allocated to him
by society, he becomes a threatening figure who is to be watched and des-
pised.

Even though this potential animosity towards the scientific community
is perceived, the respondents believe that scientists sould communicate the
results of their experiments and new theoretical developments to the
general public (see Table 7). Seventy-three percent give a non-qualified
approval of popularization. Hence, the responses to pepularization are
negatively correlated, Q = -.68, to the responses made to the question
on appreciation.. They perceive several types of sommunication: 1) direct
popularization of science to the public by the scientific community; 2) direct
popularization by writers who have been trained in science; and 3) indirect
popularization through instruction of the youth in the normal course of

education. Through these means, they believe that the general public might

28
keep abreast with scientific developments.

Table 7: Public Appreciation and Scientific Popularization

Public Appreciation Scientific POpularization
Responses: Qualified Non-qualified Total
Qualified 15% (6) 63% (25) 78% (31)
Non-qualified 12% (5) 10% ( h) 22% ( 9)
Total 27 ll 73 29 l66%‘(fi67 E

Q == -.68; x2 = 6.58, d.f. = l, p .01
This belief is not shared by the remaining 27% who gave qualified

approval. It is their contention that popularization will not lead to E
a diffusion of scientific knowledge because of several factors. Scientists
will have to "water-down" the essential significance of any of their
findings if they were to attempt communication to every segment of society.
Secondly, the effort might be determental if it reinforced the stereotypic
image of the scientist. And thirdly, some of the results of experiments
could possibly produce mass hysteria or fear due to misinterpretations
of the import of these findings. Therefore, this minority ecdorse limited
popularization similar to what is occuring presently, a restricted audience
to which such communication is directed, and the revelation of findings
in a manner which will avert misinterpretation.

Science and the Institutions of Society, With the same tripartite

division that segmentalized the role of science in society, the doctoral

candidates outline technological, social, inputs of science to the other

institutions of satiety. Each input is viewed as a product of the

application of the results of pure research to practical problems and is

defined as follows: a technical input is an innovation in some mechanical

 

29

apparatus used by an institution; a social input is an innovation
in the structure and social processes of an institution; and an ideological
input is an innovation in the normative order of an institution.

In each institution, the present their conceptions of the inputs of
science. These institutions can be viewed as existing along a continuum.construct
ed on the basis of these inputs. On one end of the continuum.is the instit-
ution of religion whose scientific input is ideological. At the opposite
end lies the economic institution (industry) which receives a technical

input. The institutions in the intermediary ranges of the continuum

:-‘-—.—-_-—~. y—m mauamfi

(Government, Family, and Military in that order) receive a combination of

inputs from science.

Table 8: Conception of the Inputs of Science to the
Institutions of Societyt

Conception of Institutions
Input to Sci- Religion Government Family Military Industry
ence:
Technical --- 6h% 63% 87% 90%
Social 9% 18% 13% 3%
a
Ideological 73% 19% 5% --- 3 ,0
_ J a --- h
No Res onse: 27 8 lho '_6%
p 10 . 10 100 167% 10
Total (N=ho) (N-ho) (Nsuo) (Nzho) (N=ho)

* Percentage refers to the number of respondents, who mention the
category as an input to the Specific institution, over the number of respon-

dents.

In each case, the doctoral candidates maintain that it is easier

to identify the technical input due to its visibility and that the advanced

state of the physical sciences is responsible for the tremendous impact

of technology on the institutions of society. It is their belief, however,

that the social science and the biological sciences will have a greater

impact than before in the next fifty years and thusly produce new social

30
and ideological innovations. Two questions were asked to ascertain:
l) which science has had the greatest impact since World War II, and
2) which science will have the greatest impact in the next fifty years.
To the former, 99% of the respondents mention the physical sciences,
33% the biological, and 11% the social sciences. To the latter,however,
50% state the physical, 6h% the biological, and 2h% the social. (Per-
centages refer to the number of respondents, over the total number of
respondents, that mentioned the specified division).

The Future of Society and Science. The sample of future scientists
visualize the world and our society changing technically, socially, and
ideologically in the year 2,00. Improvements in communication and trans-
portation will make the world smaller, increase the interdependency of
mankind, and dissolve national and ethnic boundaries, The average life
span of the individual will increase because of the eradication of
disease, imporvements in the surgical techniques of medicine, and COD!
trolled environments. The standard of living will rise as new sources of

food are developed, and as the birth rate declines through pOpulation control.

As more jobs are created through technology and as the education level
rises, the life-chances of the individual will expand. Finally many of the
myths of mankind, religious, political, and cultural, will be destroyed

and replaced by a rationalistic approach to life and the unknown.

But this optimism is cautious, for the danger of nuclear warfare is

always present, the manipulation of the individual by governments can

occur, and overpopulation may become a reality. These possibilities led one

psychologist to paint this pessimistic portrait of the future:

There will be the following trends 1) the world
will be either a barbarous wasteland, or 2) an

overpopulated, highly organized society with

 

31

social manipulation of behavior, or 3) the ul-
timate destruction of the individual.

It also led several nuclear physicists to hOpe that future develop-

ments in their specialisation, which.might have application to nuclear
warfare, will not occur. The belief of the enlightment that "knowledge
is power," then, is held only tentatively by these doctoral candidates.

The pessimists and the cautious Optimists envision the performance
of greater functions on the part of scientists in determining the future charact-
eristics of the world. This estimate is based on their belief that the
exponential growth of scientific knowledge and the scientific community
‘will continue in the future, and that the interdependency of society and
science will increase. The implications of this expectation is clearly
shown in their predictions of future developments in science and the parti-
cipation of scientists in the institutions of society.

.As the scientific population increases, so will the demand for scientific
personnel in the institutions of society. Seventyathree percent predict
that the preportion of scientists will increase in industry, 65% in govern-
ment, and 53% in the University. The majority believe that the functions per
formed by scientists will remain the same; only the number of scientists
participating in these institutions will increase. In industry and govern-
ment, however, several respondents forsee a change in the type of functions
performed by trained scientists.

They predict an influx of scientists into the decision making levels
of these institutions. In industry, scientists will preside over'more
managerial offices; in government, they will not participate as senators or
as representatives, but as advisors in the upper levels of the various

departments of the government formulating and executing the domestic and

 

 

32
foreign policies of the nation. Only in the university will scientists
continue to perform the same functions as they do now. They could not
visualize any offices within the university that have not been held by
scientists.

Using the present state of scientific knowledge as a baseline, the
doctoral candidates predict scientific breakthroughs in all the branches
of science. However, they find the assessment of future developments
in any discipline a difficult task. The linear growth of science and
the increasing interrelationship of specializations are obstacles in
their predictions. Secondly, they feel at ease in predicting scientific
breakthroughs in their discipline, or allied areas, but not in divisions

outside their own.

Table 9: _g,ooo A.D.: Changes in Scientific Personnel
in Industry, Government, and the University

Institution
Industry Government University
Change in
Scientific
Personnel:
Yes 75% 65% 53%
No 22% 35% h2¢
Don't Know ‘_2% 33:, ._2%
100% 100% 100%
Total (nle-O) (N-sho) (Na-1+0)
Nature of
Change:
Increase in
Proportion
of Scientists 71% shat, 9573
Qualitative
Change in
Function 2h% 39% --_
No Specifica-
tion 5% 7% 5%
166% 165%, 1W

— - - (“Ml (Nzfi) (Na-21)

 

33
As Table 10 reveals, respondents predict advances in their division

of science with a higher frequency than in others. Although the clinical
and experimental psychologists foresee breakthroughs in the other divisions
of science with the same or higher frequency as their own division, they
have the highest percentage of respondents predicting advances in the
social sciences.

Aggregate results reveal that 73% of the sample visualize outstanding
developments in the biological sciences. By the year 2,000, the genetic

Table 10: Disciplines andPredictions of Future Scientific

Breakthroughs in the Physical,_Biological and
Social Sciences*

Discipline

Mathe- Physics Biology Experi- Clinical Total

matics mental Psychology
Division of Psychology
Science
Where Break-
Through will
Occur:
Physical 100% 72% 31% 50% 50% 58%
Biological not #576 92% 33% 83% 73%
Social ---- 18% 8% 50% 50% 23%

* Percentage refers to the number of respondents in the discipline, over
the total number of respondents in the discipline, that predicted scientific
breakthroughs in the specified division.

code will be fully understood and stereotype genetic systems will be deve
eloped. New surgical techniques and the use of artificial body parts will
radically change the field of medicine. The causes of disease, such as
cancer, multiple sclerosis, and cystic fibrosis, will be isolated and the
road to the development of serums to combat them will be paved. Finally,
despite their previous belief in the danger of overpopulation, new'means of

pepulation control will be discovered to ease the birth rate as the morality

31+
rate decreases.

Fifty-eight percent predict breakthroughs in the physical sciences.
Advances in astrophysics will make interplanetary Space exploration by
:machines and man a reality. Life on other plantes will be discovered
through such probes. Atomic physicists, in their search for the funda-
mental particles of the atom, will find a continuation between matter and
energy. The growth of knowledge about Quasar and X-ray stars will enable
physicists to develop some plausible explanation for the creation of the
universe. In conjunction with psychologists and psychotherapists, the
biochemists will produce drugs to combat mental disease.

In the social sciences, psychology will understand to a greater
degree the functioning; of the human mind and the dynamics of’personality.
Improvements in the theories and therapeutic methods will enable clinical
psychologists and psychotherapists to locate the causes of mental disease
and to treat formally incurable patients. In sociology and social psychology,
scientists will understand the dynamics of group behavior, adopt mathematical
techniques, and be able to predict in certain circumstances the behavior of
individuals and groups.

Even though these advances of science will produce resultant changes
in the nature of society, they do not portend the evoluation of a new
science. While maintaining a dynamic conception of society, the sample's
view of the nature of science is static. Only 5% of these doctoral can-
didates contend that the basic characteristics of science will change.

Nine out of ten construe the advances of science as additions to the ever-
growing corpus of scientific knowledge. The breakthroughs imply improvements

in scientific instrumentation and theories. 01d theories may be reformulated

35
or new theories begun in light of these discoveries and advances;

but science as a method, as a cognitive style, or as the study of

the physical or natural world will remain immutable. It will not,

as the minority suggest, become more subjective, less deductive,

abandon the pursuit of knowledge, or take into account the spiritual.

.As one physicist stated, "Science either is what it was in the past

and is today, or it does not exist."

SIRE-UNIX: PROSPECTS FUR FUTURE RESEARCH

IN THE SOCIOLOGY'OE‘SCIEECE

Several conclusions can be drawn from the results pre—
sented in the section on Conceptions of Science: I) there is
a considerable difference between the conceptions of the na-
ture of science and of the membership criterion of the scien-
tific community; 2) these conceptions vary with discipline;

3) the greater the emphasis placed by a discipline on defining
science as a method, the greater the equivalence between the

conceptions of science and of the.membershio criterion of the
i J.

l-’°

sc entific community; and h) self-identification as a sci-

entist is determined by the conception of the membership cri—
terion of the scientific community. If an individual views his
discipline or specialization and his ability with the use of

the scientific method as congruent with the criterion, he will
positively identify as a scientist. If he does not, he will con—
sider his position to be an aspiring scientist or negatively
identify depending on the circumstances.

As has been shown previously, creativity is not the key
element in the respondents' conceptions of science, perceptions
of the membership criterion of the scientific community, or self—
identification as scientists. In the first instance, the object

O.

of scientil c inquiry is crucial; in the second and third, the

37
scientific method. Although these findings contradict Storer's
theoretical assumption, they do not imply that the ability to pro-
duce novelty is not the scientific ideal toward which the normative order
of science is oriented. Creativity may in fact be more important than
the description of empirical reality or ability to use the scientific
method at the professional level. No doubt it is a critical factor
in vertical mobility within the scientific community. But to these
doctoral candidates the acquisition of knowledge of the objects and
methods of their inquiry is the necessary requisite for their partici-
pation in the scientific community. Whether or not creativity will become
their scientific ideal once they move past their preprofessional status
as graduate students can be determined by future research.

Since the international scientific community is a viable and visable
entity in the eyes of the respondents, we have seen that the norm of in-
ternationalism is central to the respondents' conceptions of science.
Even though they believe that the primary function of the international sci-
entific community is the communication of information which implies con-
formity to the norm of commonality, they conform.to the norm of intera
nationalism.more than to the norm.of commonality. This implies not only
that the norm of internationalism.is more pervasive than the norm of
commonality, but suggests that the concept of commonality may need re-
formulation and greater specification.

Rather than being a unified concept, there may be types of commonality
or levels of conformity to the norm. For instance, there may be interb
national.commonality which demands common ownership of goods across social
and political boundaries; national commonality'which imPleS the sharing

and scientific findings only within one nationpstate; or disciplinary

 

38

commonality, the exchange of information amongst a limited group of
scientists within one discipline. Or there may be conformity to the norm at t
international, national, or disciplinary levels. Similarly levels of
conformity to the norm of internationalism might be established.

'we have seen that a.minority of the respondents regard the inter-
national scientific community as composed of only the scientists in-
volved in research on a specific problem, the elites of a discipline, or
a specific discipline or area of specialization. Others visualize it as in-
cluding all individuals who perform the role of a scientist. It may be
possible to classify each of these as a level of conformity to the norm
of internationalism with the last category as the highest level and the
first as the lowest. Also a typology of international scientific communities
possibly can be constructed on a similar basis. Through this method and
the suggestions made with regard to the norm of commonality, conceptual
clarification of both concepts might be attained.

In addition to these suggestions, the following conclusions can be
made: 1) there is greater conformity to the norm of internationalism.than
to the norm of commonality; 2) military potential is a factor in conformity
and non- conformity to the norm of commonality, but not in conformity and
nonconformity to the norm of internationalism; and 3) disciplines with a
high military potential have a greater tendency to Juxtopose two contrad-
ictory normdtive behavior patterns than those with a low military potential.
These results imply that the linkage of society and science has effected
the behavior of these doctoral candidates to the normative structure of
science. Whether or not the conclusions are applicable to a different group

of doctoral candidates or disciplines, or a sample of scientists who have

39

professional status in the scientific community is an empirical
question. lMoreover, from.a cross-cultural perspective one may
ask the following: will the tendency towards nonconformity to the
norm 9f commonality exist in those societies where the military
potential of scientific research is not emphasized? Or will there
be a greater deviation for the norm of internationalism in societies
which are not center of science, for example, the developing nations?
These are empirical questions that can be resolved only through
future comparative and cross-cultural research.

Similar issues can be raised concerning the interrelationship
of science and society. we have seen that: l) the social roles and
inputs of science to the other institutions of society are viewes as
indirect byaproducts of the primary role of science, the pursuit of
knowledge; 2) public appreciation is perceived as based on the tech-
nological usefulness of science and as temporary, yet a nonqualified
belief in scientific popularization is upheld; 3) a continuum of
institutions can be constructed on the basis of the conceptions of the
inputs of science to the institutions of society; h) society is viewed
dynamically, changing in response to new scientific developments and
the growth of the scientific community; and 5) the belief in the future
of the world is either one of cautious Optimism.or pessimism. These
projections point to an increasing interrelationship between society
and science, a greater impact of science on society, and the extension
of the exponential growth of science. But they do not indicate what
effects these facts have on the structure of the institution of science.

Undoubtedly the respondents would maintain that science is un-

changing in its basic nature. Yet as the section Commonality and Inter»

ho
nationalism reveals, the applied social value of scientific research
has led to a deviation from one element in the normative structure
of science. 'What needs to be investigated, then, are the inputs of
the institutions of society to the institution of science, and the
effects of these systemic linkages on science. Moreover, the inter-
national scientific community must be taken into account in such an
endeavor.

Since the international scientific community is composed of
scientists from a variety of nation-states, the differences in the
interrelationship of science and society within nationystates should
also have an effect on its structure. Not only must the nature of these
effects be investigated, but also the mechanisms through which the interb
national scientific community reconciles differences in national scientific
communities. In addition, the systemic linkages between the nations of
the world and the international scientific community, and between the
national and international scientific commities, mlst be located and
analyzed. Through this means it may also be possible to outline the
effects of the international scientific community upon societies and
their institutions.

Before this can be attempted, however, it is necessary to specify
the variations of interrelationships between society and science within
the nationpstates. We have seen that the doctoral candidates have
given primacy to the technical role and input of science in society.
Within the nation-states, it is possible that the social and ideological
roles of science might be emphasized. If this were the case, the continuum

of institutions would have to be rearranged to fit the societyal setting.

#1
For instance, in the case of the developing nations, the social role
and input of science may be the main systemic linkage between science
and the other institutions. Moreover, the input of society to science
may be none existent in this situation and the national scientific
community may receive its inputs from the international scientific
community, international scientific organizations such as UNESCO, or
from.other nationpstates. Similarly, in the case of the Communist
nations, the ideological and social roles of science may be just as
dominant as its technical role. Public appreciation, then, may hinge
upon the contributions of the national scientific community to the
maintanance of the ideological basis of the society and scientists may
express a greater belief in scientific popularization.

In addition, through comparative research 7 one might seek to find
out whether or not the belief in the unchanging nature of science and
dynamic nature of society is universal amongst scientists. For instance,
in the Soviet Uhion and Nazi Germany where the scientific community has
experienced the fusion of the normative structure of science with the
ideological framwork of the society, would this belief exist?

Only future comparative and cross-cultural research can resolve these

issues.

NOTES

OSIRIS, IV (1938), pp. 360-732.

Social Tieory and Socia Structure, rev. ed., New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957, pp. 537-5h9.

 

"Belief-System and the Social System: The Problem of the
'Role of Ideas', "The Social System, New York: The Free
Press of Glencoe, 1951, pp. 326:363.

 

Science and the Social Order, New York: The Free Press of
Glencoe, 1952.

 

The Social System of Science, Chicago: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, 190s.

 

A Methodological Footnote. Research and theory-building
in the sociology of science and in general sociology will
be facilitated if we can specify, however arbitrarily and
tentatively, a general frame of reference for the study

of institutions and total societies. At one level of ana-
lysis, the social structure of a society can be conceptu-
alized as composed of more or less differentiated institu-
tions--every society has the same analytical components of
social structure, manifested in a variety of empirical ins-
titutions. Science is an institution--it is not universal,
but is present in a range of cases which represent our
universe of study. The sociology of science, as a substan—
tive area, illuminates the nature of the relationships be-
tween science and the other institutions of the social
structure, their effects on science in particular, and their
effects on social structure in general (see page 2). The
purpose of comparative and cross-cultural studies is to help
us identify recurring processes, relationslips, etc. The
meaningfulness of this particular way of viewing one part of
the social world is an empirical question-—it is not a ques-
tion of whether or not the world is "really line that;" but
a question of whether or not the world is sufficiently like
that.

 

Joseph Heedham, Science and Civilization in China, London:
Cmmnfidge,195h.

, Science and International Relations, Oxford:
Blacnwell Scientific Publications, 1§h9, p. 6.

Joseph Ben-David, "The Scientific Role: The Conditions of
its Establishment in EurOpe," dinerva, # (Autumn, 1965).

10.

ll.

12.

Gavin de Beer, The Sciences were Never at War,
New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, l9bO.

 

C. C. Gillispie, "Science and the French Revolution,"
Behavioral Science, h (January, 1959), p. 9%.

 

Warren 0. Hagstrom, The Scientific C mmunitv, New York:
Basic Books, 1965, p. 9.

 

Storer, p. 58.

Ibid.

 

Unless otherwise specified, this quotation and the
followins are responses of the interviewees.

Robert K. Merton, "Science and Democratic Social
Structure, "Social Theory and Socia Structure, p. 53h.

 

Ibid.

U. S. Department of the Army, Scientists in Uniform in
World War 11, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Prin-
ting Office, 19MB.

 

 

Barber, p. 220. C.f., U. S. President's Scientific Re-
search Board, A Program for the Nation, Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 19h7.

 

"111111111111111'“