This is the second guide in the series Teaching the History of Science: Resources and Strategies, published under the auspices of the Committee on Education by the History of Science Society. These guides, written by specialists, are intended for the use of historians of science as well as general historians and any other teachers who wish to begin or revise a history of science course or to incorporate new topics into an existing course. The guides will be published in the Newsletter first, then as separate pamphlets.

The first guide, The Scientific Revolution, appeared in the July 1986 issue of the Newsletter; three more are planned for publication in the near future. The editorial board for each guide is drawn from the Society's Committee on Education. The committee welcomes comments on the value of these guides, as well as on suggested topics for future guides.

EFFECTS ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES

The effect of science and technology on the vaguely defined set of values known collectively as democracy is a pervasive theme in the literature on science, technology, and public policy. Political theorists preoccupied with the relationship of knowledge to power have long envisioned the emergence of expertise as a positive force for rational government. But in the 1960s attention turned to the dilemmas of democracy in a society increasingly influenced by scientific and technical expertise. Subsequently the science and public policy literature has grappled with these dilemmas in a variety of policy contexts.

Here I will first review the way the problem has been framed in this literature and then turn to the development of the theme in studies of the relationship between science and the citizen. I have limited the scope of this review to work on the contemporary implications of science and technology and therefore have not attempted to review the broader literature on the history of democratic theory (see historical review by Pateman 1970).

THE PROBLEM DEFINED

The problem is often posed as a question: How can democratic values be preserved in a society where science and technology are increasingly dominant institutions? The science and public policy literature highlights the conflicts between efficiency and democratic ideology, between the tendency to define complex problems as technical, and therefore resolvable by expertise, and the ideal of citizen participation and public choice. These studies point up the difficulties of creating a knowledgeable, participating public and the problems of redefining the role and responsibilities of scientists in a society where their decisions are of increasing public importance. These themes are woven throughout the diverse and diffuse literature that defines this policy field (see review by Nelkin 1977b).

During the 1960s studies on the values of postindustrial society proliferated. The predominant theme was "the end of ideology" and the rationalization of politics through the increased salience of technical expertise (Bell 1960; Lane 1966). J. Meynaud (1968) wrote about "technocracy," John Kenneth Galbraith (1967) about the "technostructure," Nigel Calder (1971) about "technopolis," Daniel Bell (1973) about governments organized around knowledge, and Jacques Ellui (1964) about the dominance of technique over political choice. These and other writers (Wheeler 1968; Klaw 1969) observed the increased use of technical expertise as a basis for public decisions and the resulting shift of political power from elected representatives to technocrats, who are not directly accountable to the public. Subsequent analyses developed these themes further by pointing to the ways in which science and technology appear to threaten democratic values.

One threat explored in the literature is the power afforded to those who control technical information. In the 1960s Harvey Brooks (1965) warned that broad areas of public policy were shifting from the arena of politics to that of expertise, so that problems of political choice are buried in debates among experts over technical alternatives. Science policy analysts continue to observe the growing importance of scientific knowledge as an apolitical basis of policy formation (Ezrahi 1980; Lakoff 1977). However, the actual political role of technical expertise is a matter of some debate. Several writers see a real shift of political power from elected representatives to a new class of experts. (Gouldner 1979; Ellul 1964). Others see experts as "mandarins" simply used to reinforce the power and political legitimacy of those who dispose of technological and economic resources (Marcuse 1964; Eulau 1973).

Still other discussions of the power of knowledge dwell on the possibilities of social manipulation inherent in the use of expertise to justify and legitimate political decisions (Melanson 1973; Winner 1986). They suggest that expertise is a political resource and that the ability to capture this resource has profound implications for the distribution of power. Larry Sabato (1981), for example, examines the implications of limited access to costly social technologies (such as surveys and direct mail) on electoral politics. In his history of science-based industry, David Noble (1977) sees scientific expertise as a "handmaiden" to capitalist forces. Guy Benveniste (1977) studies the techniques of expertise and the increasingly central political role of technical consultants. These studies imply that the political legitimacy of the government is based less on representation than on the ability to manipulate and control the context of facts and values in which policies are shaped (see also Lowi 1972).

Along with the increased importance of technical expertise, researchers find an apparent reduction of political choice. Winner (1977) documents how technologies them selves can legislate our existence, becoming In a sense "technological regimes." While decisions are initially made to implement certain technological systems, once set in motion these systems become deterministic, limiting and shaping future options. And while the very scale and economic importance of technological systems call for democratic decision making, complexity limits people's role in influencing decisions affecting their lives (Hoos 1972). Meanwhile increased requirements of technical expertise as a basis for public decisions create a sense of political alienation and a loss of political efficacy. Jeffrey Straussman (1978) develops this theme, documenting the growing confusion between efficiency and the social purposes of public policy and emphasizing the limits of technocratic politics.

Finally, analysts have addressed how developments in science and technology can affect certain rights that we have come to expect in democratic societies. Technological opportunities presented by computers threaten to violate individual privacy (Westin 1970; Westin and Baker 1972; Burnham 1983). Some research in genetics evokes old images of eugenic controls (Kevles 1985). Brain research raises specters of social and psychological manipulation (Chorover 1980; Valenstein 1973). Research on the biological basis of human behavior threatens to violate individual rights (Lewontin et al. 1984).

SCIENCE AND THE CITIZEN

General concerns about the social and political implications of science and technology are reflected in analyses of specific policy questions bearing on the relationship between science and the citizen. Considerable scholarly attention has been directed to four issues: the political roles and responsibilities of scientists; problems in the dissemination and use of technical knowledge by laypersons; controversies emerging out of growing concern about the impacts of science and technology; and dilemmas of citizen participation in science and technology policy.

Political Roles and Responsibilities of Scientists. In 1969 Joseph Haberer (1969) defined the relationship of science to government as one of "prudential acquiescence." In his review of the political behavior of scientists from Bacon to Oppenheimer, he suggested that in their effort to immunize their enterprise against the disease of politics scientists historically have disengaged themselves from politics or else quietly acquiesced to the demands of the state. However, Alice Smith (1965) and Daniel Kevles (1977) provided examples, especially in the post-World War II period, of political activism among atomic scientists in support of civilian control of atomic energy. Moreover, the literature on scientific advisory systems (Brooks 1964; Gianos 1974; Skolnikoff and Brooks 1975), on scientists and national policy (Salomon 1973; Schooler 1971), and on professionalism among engineers and scientists (Penucci 1971; Price 1969) suggested the growing engagement of scientists in public affairs. This increased political activity resurrected concern about the growing political influence of technical expertise and prompted discussions about the social responsibility of scientists and engineers (Edsall 1975). Scientists, it was argued, hold a unique position because of their expertise, and this status gives rise to special social obligations. In effect they must compensate for the narrow distribution of knowledge in society (Teich 1974; Brown 1971).

These discussions stimulated the formation of public interest science organizations. Scientists organized to oppose the antiballistic missile and military research in universities (Lakoff 1977). They became involved in the environmental movement, working with citizen advocacy groups (Primack and von Hippel 1974). Whistle-blowing became a widely debated activity when scientists and engineers called public attention to industrial or governmental practices that violated the public interest (Chalk 1982; Westin 1981).

Scientists have developed increasing sophistication in political affairs, but their actions raise controversial questions: Are scientists responsible for the social consequences of their work? To what extent should they use their expertise to engage in political activity in the public interest? What is the effect of political actions on science itself and on the public image of science? The debates over such questions reflect the tensions between the scientists' traditional disengagement from politics and the movement for greater social responsibility.

The Dissemination and Use of Technical Knowledge. The realization that knowledge is intrinsically linked to power and influence has provoked a variety of studies bearing on questions of public access to esoteric technical information. Harold Orlans (1979) and Paul Sabatier (1978) call attention to the contradictions that arise in applying scientific knowledge to public policy. While science is often uncertain, incomplete, and complex, politicians and administrators demand practicability, certainty, and simplicity. Several studies (Rich 1975; Orlans 1971) focus on the use of social science knowledge and, in particular, on its vulnerability to political interpretation. Philip Melanson (1973) suggests that knowledge has a double-edged role as both a source of political liberation and an instrument to narrow political options. He sees the struggle over knowledge as a reflection of basic conflicts within American democracy. Michael Brown (1985) looks more specifically at questions of access to information and the barriers that can obstruct dissemination. Distinguishing between information and the knowledge necessary to take action, he asks how workers in hazardous jobs can obtain in formation and transform it into the knowledge they need to protect themselves. John Gaventa (1985) asks similar questions about Appalachian mountain people who are concerned about protecting themselves against the effects of toxic wastes. Both authors define the control of knowledge as a struggle between powerful and powerless groups.

Studies of access to information extend to analyses of laws such as the Freedom of Information Act (Relyea 1980), government classification policies and export laws (Nelkin 1984b), trade secrecy (McGarity and Shapiro 1980), and the legal issues involved in access to data (Boruch et al. 1981). Issues concerning the ownership and control of information are also analyzed in studies of the trend toward secrecy in the 1980s, as the preoccupation with national security and international industrial competition encourages restrictions on the dissemination of information about science and technology (Dickson 1984; Science, Technology and Human Values 1985).

Technological Controversies and Resolution Of Disputes. During the 1970s and 1980s potentially hazardous technologies-airports (Milch 1976), toxic dumps (Levine 1982), nuclear plants (Nelkin and Pollak 1981) have become sources of public controversies. Science-based programs such as fetal research (Ramsey 1975) and recombinant DNA research (Krimsky 1982) have also provoked public disputes. Studies of these controversies (Mazur 1973; Nelkin 1984a) emphasize their political implications as various interests seek greater control over science and technology decisions. Controversies involve political lobbying, demonstrations, and litigation. Joseph DiMento (1977) documents the increased litigation; William Thomas (1974) and Laurence Tribe (1971), the problems of the courts in dealing with citizen concerns about scientific and technological issues.

The proliferation of controversies has led to a widespread belief that the public is "antiscience" (Sklair 1971). However, attitude surveys have consistently suggested that the public is ambivalent, as its concern about the harmful effects of science and technology is mixed with continued faith in their role as the basis of social and economic progress (Prewitt 1982; Yankelovich 1982). In the 1980s controversies have increasingly focused on the potential hazards of technology, spawning a literature on the perceptions, dissemination, and management of risk.

While much of this literature consists of technical assessments of hazards, social scientists have emphasized that risk is a social and political concept, that perceptions of risk influenced by political world views. Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1982) developed this in a cultural context; Dorothy Nelkin and Michael Brown (194; and Nelkin 1985) in the context of the workplace; Baruch Fitchoff et al. (1981) in the context of environmental risks. Each work points to the concern about decision making and political choice that pervade risk disputes.

The dilemmas of democratic decision making in technical areas are evident in growing literature on techniques of dispute resolution. The key to resolving disputes, according to many scholars, is somehow to involve those affected by science and technology in decisions about their use. Lawrence Susskind and Connie Ozawa (1983) and Allan Talbot (1983) look at mediation; others (Gamble 1978; Lee 1982) study public inquiries and professional intervention. Concern about democratic values became the center of series of debates over a proposal to create a science court that would engage technical expertise in the resolution of policy disputes (Task Force 1976; Casper 1981). At issue were the borders between facts and values, between technical and political control over technological policies. These borders are inherently controversial, being blurred by technical, political, and professional differences and by cultural biases as well. Indeed comparative research shows how different institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution reflect different cultural concepts of democracy (Nelkin 1977a; Nelkin and Pollak 1981).

Participation of Citizens. The tension between expertise and democracy, compounded by the growing number of public controversies over science and technology, generated a literature on citizen participation. The problems of participation in decisions about complex technologies were presented in an article on "participatory technology" by James Carroll (1971). In the early 1970s participatory reforms were incorporated into major federal legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act, but they were difficult to implement. Studies, therefore, followed on ways to involve the citizen in technological decisions. James Petersen (1984) gathered material on participatory experiments in science policy; Diana Dutton and John Hochheimer (l982) wrote of participation in biomedical policy. A National Science Foundation program, "Science for the Citizen," focused attention on ways to distribute sufficient expertise so that citizens can deal effectively with the complexities of decision making in technical areas. However, John Gaventa (1985) and Sheldon Krimsky (1984) took another approach. Arguing that the use of technical expertise is often simply a means to maintain existing power relationships and questioning the very definitions of useful knowledge, they pointed to the value of folk wisdom or popular experience in decisions about science and technology.

CURRICULAR SUGGESTIONS

A shift in the discourse about science, technology, and democratic values is emerging in the 1980s-an era of increased concern over industrial competitiveness, technological prowess, and national security. While today's sophisticated technologies have deep social and political implications, the trend in govern mental policy is to limit public access to information, to manage controversies, and to reduce citizen participation. These trends are exacerbating the persistent tension between democracy and science and technology, making the study of and teaching about these issues all the more important.

My Cornell graduate seminar, "The Politics of Technical Decisions," suggests the kind of course that can be developed from this material. This seminar explores the origins of technocratic politics, the role of technical experts in decision making, and the questions of political versus professional control that arise in disputed areas of public policy. I develop the themes described above in the context of controversial policy choices where technical and political issues tend to converge. The students, coming to the seminar from a broad range of disciplines, write case studies of disputes, some of which have been published in my edited volume (Nelkin 1984a).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, Daniel. 1960. The End of Ideology .Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

-------------- 1973. The Coming of Post-lndustrial Society. New York: Basic Books.

Benveniste, Guy. 1977. The Politics of Expertise. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser.

Boruch, Robert, et al. 1981. "Access to Research Data." Report to the National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics, National Academy of Sciences,Washington, D.C.

Brooks, Harvey. 1964. "The Scientific Advisor." In Scientists and National Policy Making, ed. R. Gilpin and C. Wright. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

------------ 1965. "Scientific Concepts and Cultural Change." Daedalus, 94:66-83.

Brown, Martin (ed.). 1971. The Social Responsibility of the Scientist. New York: Free Press.

Brown, Michael, 1985. "Disputed Knowledge." In The Language of Risk, ed. D. Nelkin, pp, 67-96, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage,

Burnham, David, 1983. The Rise ofthe Computer State. New York: Random House.

Calder, Nigel. 1971. Technopolis: Social Control of the Uses of Science. New York:Clarion Books.

Carroll, James D. 1971. "Participatory Technology." Science. 19 February, 171:647-653.

Casper, Barry M. 1981. Powerline. Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.

Chalk, Rosemary. 1982. "The Miners' Canary." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,February, 38(2):16-22.

Chorover, Stephen. 1980. The Pacification of the Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Dickson, David. 1984. The New Politics of Science. New York: Pantheon Books.

DiMento, Joseph F. 1977. "Citizen Environmental Litigation and the Administrative Process: Empirical Findings, Remaining Issues and a Direction for Future Research." Duke Law Journal, 22:409-448.

Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. California Press.

Dutton, Diana, and John Hochheimer. 1982."Institutional Biosafety Committees and Public Participation: Assessing an Experiment." Nature, 6 May, 297: 11-15.

Edsall, John T. 1975. "Scientific Freedom and Responsibility." Science, 16 May, 188:687-693.

Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The Technological Society. New York: Knopf.

Eulau, Heinz. 1973. "Skill Revolution and Consultative Commonwealth." American Political Science Review, 67: 169-191.

Ezrahi, Yaron. 1980. "Science and the Problem of Authority in Democracy." In

Science and Social Structure, ed. T. Gieryn. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 39:43-60.

Fischoff, Baruch, et al. 1981. Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1967. The New Industrial State. New York: Signet Books.

Gamble, D.J. 1978. "The Berger Inquiry: An Impact Assessment Process." Science, 3 March, 199:946-952.

Gaventa, John. 1985. "The Powerful, the Powerless and the Experts." In Participatory Research in America, ed. Peter Park, Budd Hall, and Ted Jackson. (Forthcoming.)

Gianos, Phillip L. 1974. "Scientists as National Policy Advisers: The Context of Influence." Western Political Quarterly, September, pp. 429-456.

Gilpin, Robert, and C. Wright (eds.). 1964. Scientists and National Policy Making. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Gouldner, Alvin. 1979. The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of a New Class. New York: Seabury Press.

Haberer, Joseph. 1969. Politics and the Communiry of Science. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hoos, I. R. 1972. Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. California Press.

Kevles, Daniel J. 1977. The Physicists. New York: Knopf.

-----. 1985. In the Name ofEugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf.

Klaw, Spencer. 1969. The New Brahmans: Scientific Life in America. New York: William Merrow.

Krimsky, Sheldon. 1982. Generic Alchemy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

-----. 1984. "Epistemic Considerations on the Value of Folk-Wisdom in Science and Technology." Policy Studies Review, February, 3:246-262.

Lakoff, Sanford A. 1977. "Scientists, Technologists and Political Power." In Science, Technology and Society. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, ed. 1. Spiegel-Rosing and D. de Solla Price, pp. 355-391. London: Sage.

Lane, Robert E. 1966. "The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society." American Sociological Review, October, 31(5):649-662.

Lee, Kai N. 1982. "Defining Success in Environmental Disputes Resolution." Resolve, Spring, pp. 1, 3-6.

Levine, Adeline. 1982. Love Canal: Science, Politics and People. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.

Lewontin, Richard, Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin. 1984. Not in Our Genes: Ideology and Human Nature. New York: Pantheon Books.

Lowi, Theodor J. 1972. "Blurring of Sector Lines: Rise of New Elites from One Vantage Point, the Conference Road." In Information Technology, pp. 131-148. New York.

MacRae, Duncan, Jr. 1973. "Science and the Formation of Policy in a Democracy." Minerva, 11:228-242.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mazur, Alan. 1973. "Disputes between Experts." Minerva, 11:243-262.

McGarity, Thomas, and Sidney Shapiro. 1980. "The Trade Secrecy Status of Health and Safety." Harvard Law Review, 93:837-889.

Melanson, Philip H. (ed.). 1973. Knowledge, Politics and Public Policy: Introductory Readings in American Politics. Cambridge. Mass.: Winthrop.

Meynaud, J. 1968. Technocracy. London Faber & Faber.

Milch, Jerome E. 1976. "Feasible and Prudent Alternatives: Airport Development in the Age of Public Protest." Public Policy, Winter, 24(1):81-109.

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1977a. Technological Decisions and Democracy. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

-----.1977b. "Technology and Public Policy." In Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, ed. I. Spiegel-Rosing and D. de Solla Price, pp. 393-442. London: Sage.

-----. 1984a. Controversy: The Politics of Technical Decisions. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

-----. 1984b. Science as Intellectual Property. New York: Macmillan.

-----. 1985. The Language of Risk. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Nelkin, Dorothy, and Michael Brown; 1984. Workers at Risk. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Nelkin, Dorothy, and Michael Pollak. 1981. The Atom Besieged. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Noble, David. 1977. America by Design. New York: Knopf.

Orlans, Harold. 1971. "The Political Uses of Social Research." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 384:28-35.

-----.1979. "On Knowledge,:Policy, Practice, and Fate." Federation Proceedings, November, 38(12):3-6.

Pateman, C. 1970. Participation in Democraric Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Permcci, Robert. 1971. "Engineering: Professional Servant of Power." American Behavioral Scientist, 14:492-506.

Petersen, James (ed.). 1984. Citizen Participation in Science Policy. Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.

Prewitt, Kenneth. 1982. "The Public and Science Policy." Science, Technology and Human Values, 7(39):5-14.

Price, Don K. 1969. "Purists and Politicians." Science, 3 January, 163:25-31.

Primack, J., and F. von Hippel. 1974. Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena. New York: Basic Books.

Ramsey, R. 1975. The Ethics of Fetal Research. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.

Relyea, Harold. 1980. "Freedom of Information, Privacy and Official Secrecy." Social Indicators Research, 7:137-156.

Revelle, Roger. 1975. "The Scientist and the Politician." Science, 21 March, 187: 1100-1105.

Rich, Robert F. 1975. "Selective Utilization of Social Science Related Information by Federal Policy-Makers." Inquiry, September, 12:239-245.

Sabatier, Paul. 1978. "The Acquisition and Utilization of Technical Information by Ad ministrative Agencies." Administrative Science Quarterly, September, 23:396-417.

Sabato, Larry. 1981. The Rise of Political Consultants. New York: Basic Books.

Salomon, Jean-Jacques. 1973. Science and Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Schooler, Dean, Jr. 1971. Science, Scientists and Public Policy. New York: Random House.

Science, Technology and Human Values. 1985. 10(2). Special issue.

Sklair, Leslie. 1971. "The Sociology of Opposition to Science and Technology." Comparative Studies in Science and History, 13:217-235.

Skolnikoff, Eugene B., and Harvey Brooks. 1975. "Science Advice in the White House? Continuation of Debate." Science, 10 January, 187:35-42.

Smith, Alice K. 1965. A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists Movement in America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Straussman, Jeffrey D. 1978. The Limits of Technocratic Politics. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

Susskind, Lawrence, and Connie Ozawa. 1983. "Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: Mediator Accountability and the Public Interest Problem." American Behavioral Scientist, November/December, 27(2):255-279.

Talbot, Allan. 1983. Settling Things: Sir Case Studies in Environmental Mediation. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology. 1976. "The Science;Court Experiment: An Interim Report." Science, 20 August, 193:653-656.

Teich, Albert (ed.). 1974. Scientists and Public Affairs. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Thomas, William A. (ed.). 1974. Scientists in the Legal System. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann-Arbor Science Publishers.

Tribe, Laurence H. 1971. "Legal Frameworks for the Assessment and Control of technology." Minerva, 9:243-255.

ValenStein, E. 1973. Brain Control. New York: Wiley.

Westin, Alan F. 1970. Information Tech nology in a Democracy. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univ.- Press.

-----. 1981. Whistleblowing. New York: McGraw Hill.

Westin, Alan F., and M. Baker. 1972. Data banks in a Free Society. New York: Quadrangle Books.

Wheeler, Harvey. 1968. Democracy in a Revolutionary Era. New York: Praeger.

Winner, Langdon. 1977. Autonomous Technology, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

-----. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Yankelovich, Daniel. 1982. "Changing Public Attitudes to Science and the Quality of Life: Edited Excerpts from a Seminar." Science, Technology and Human Values. 7(39):23-29.