La fragilidad del contrato social entre Ciencia & Sociedad.

Ciencia Moderna, Gobierno Moderno y el Contrato Social.

De acuerdo a David Guston y Kenneth Keniston, 1994, la fragilidad del contrato social entre la ciencia y la sociedad estadounidense se debe a que el contrato establecido por Vannevar Bush en, Science-The Endless Frontier, negaba la existencia de tensiones entre la ciencia y la democracia, en el libro que co-editaron, The fragile contract: university science and the federal government, David Guston and Kenneth Keniston, MIT Press, 1994, lo explican de la siguiente forma (páginas 32-33):

"The changed world of modern science and modern government means that it is imperative to search for and begin to define a new social contract, or series of contracts, between the institutions of democracy and the institutions of science. The scientific community needs to reach out and justify its claim on public resources by demonstrating where and how it is relevant in solving public problems. Science needs to ear the confidence of the public and the government, and to enhance its contribution to the general welfare. Conversely, government will need to devise better ways of demarcating the boundaries between what is legitimately political and what is legitimately scientific, of determining the overall levels of support for science and technology and, within that overall budget, of devising rational and fair ways of choosing among distinct and competing scientific and technological priorities.

New contracts are needed, contracts that recognize the increasing interdependence of science and democracy but that also recognize the futility of searching for an end to all tension between them. To be itself, science must continue to pursue scientific truth, and to this end, it will continue to be meritocratic, even elitist. Democratic government, on the other hand, must institute processes that create fairness through egalitarianism and participation. These processes will often deviate from the ends or standards that scientists might prescribe. The attempt to run science on democratic principles would destroy science; but that does not mean that the existing institutions and processes of science are responsive enough to democracy. The attempt to run government on scientific principles would destroy democracy; but that does not mean that our current politics is sufficiently informed or advised by science.

The old contract between science and government was fragile partly because it denied these tensions.”

Partes de este libro se pueden leer en Google Books.

David Guston es también autor del libro, Between Politics and Science, 2000, Cambridge University Press. Un artículo interesante de David Guston sobre este tema es: The Demise of the Social Contract for Science: Misconduct in Science and the Nonmodern World, 1992.

Rescato una frase de Guston & Kesington para nuestro entorno de la ciencia venezolana:

"Democratic government, on the other hand, must institute processes that create fairness through egalitarianism and participation. These processes will often deviate from the ends or standards that scientists might prescribe. The attempt to run science on democratic principles would destroy science.." [Por otra parte, los gobiernos democráticos deben instituir procesos que generen equidad por medio del igualitarismo y la participación. Estos processos con frecuencia se desviarán de los fines o de los estándares que los científicos pudieran prescribir. Los intentos de gerenciar la ciencia basados en principios democráticos destruirían a la ciencia.]

NOTA: El caso venezolano ha sido tratado en La Ciencia Venezolana en la Transición: hacia un Nuevo Contrato Social, Yajaira Freites, Bitacora-e, Revista Electrónica Latinoamericana de Estudios Sociales, Históricos y Culturales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, 2005, No1.

José Alvarez-Cornett
Representante de los Egresados al
Consejo de Escuela de Física, Fac. Ciencias, UCV
@chegoyo
josecornett2000@marshall.usc.edu