Social Studies of Science

In an analysis of the dispute between the proponents of Laetrile and those opposing the substance, the Impact of both knowledge and value factors is explored. First, six related knowledge disputes are considered, with an emphasis on the difficulties of conflict resolution. It is suggested that when Laetrile supporters failed to obtain a favourable adjudication within the scientific community, they expanded the scope of the conflict through the use of the courts, state legislatures, and the freedom of choice appeal Government regulatory bodies and leading members of the American medical commumty have tried to limit the scope of the conflict through claims of specialized knowledge and expertise. Fmally, the concept of 'adjudication' is introduced to place the Laetrile dispute in an intellectual context which emphasizes the role of both knowledge and value factors in scientific controversies.

The evolution of high-level science advisory councils in France, the Netherlands and the United States is reviewed in the light of common trends in the relationship of science and government over the past twenty years The creation of the councils came as a response to similar needs of governments m the domestic and international spheres. The subsequent decline of the advisory councils in all three countries is attributable to the 'bureaucratization' of science policy-making, a slower rate of growth in R&D expenditure, a more goal-oriented approach in governments' sponsorship, changing public attitudes towards science and technology, and the intrinsic difficulties faced by the council members in acting both as scientists and as political advisors. The revitalization of the councils in the mid-1970s was similarly inspired by emerging needs and institutional developments affecting all three governments In turn, the distinctive features of each council derive from underlying differences in political organization and culture. These differences are revealed in governmental conceptions of science policy; in the role played by scientists in public affairs; and in the organization of scientific and technological interests in political decision-making.

The controversy over peer review is viewed as a dialectic. The arguments espoused by advocates and critics of the system wherein research proposals are evaluated by advisors to funding agencies are reviewed, particularly the findings of two recent studies of peer review at the National Science Foundation These findings seem to establish merit as the primary factor m the recommendations of peer reviewers to fund proposals The findings also beg several questions as to 'acceptable' definitions of meritoriousness and innovativeness, the links among belief, perception, and evaluation, and the sanctioned operation of particularistic factors m the review process Future studies, it is suggested, must include psychological variables - especially measurement of applicants' and reviewers' 'cognitive styles' - if data are to narrow gaps in knowledge and inform the debate itself Finally, three models which undergird views of peer review are discussed and related to key social issues m the debate

The relationship between national scientific effort, national economic size, and national affluence is investigated. It is found that the relationship between these variables differs substantially for developed countries (DCs) and underdeveloped countries (LDCs). While affluence and economic size jointly correlate highly with levels of scientific effort m DCs, economic size alone correlates strongly with levels of scientific effort in LDCs. It is concluded that so long as LDCs remain underdeveloped economically, the prospects for their establishing strong scientific capabilities are weak.