The underlying consensus

The last two chapters have been rather abstract. There has been practically no reference to empirical facts, and the line of argument always seemed to stop short of the really interesting questions. What is the point of outlining a purely schematic model of the R & D system?

The very possibility of there being general agreement on such a representation of the social context of science is fundamental for the future of STS education. It is this unacknowledged consensus on the underlying structure of the subject that can bring coherence to the curriculum. This particular model is not necessarily the best possible, but it was worth describing in outline, not because it is sharply disputed, but because there is so little realization of how much, in fact, is implicitly held in common by those involved in the STS movement.

This underlying structure is somewhat more complicated than scientist philosophers or sociologists used to believe. But it cannot be made simpler without grave distortion. To make sense of ‘academic’ science, for example, one must take seriously all three aspects – the psychology of research and invention, the sociology of the scientific community, and the philosophical criteria for objective knowledge. The immense resources needed nowadays for scientific apparatus cannot be ignored. In a wider social context, science is seen to be inseparable from technology, making up an R & D system whose internal management and public policies have profound effects on science itself and in society as a whole.