Morgunbladid, Iceland's leading daily, March 22, 2000

By Steindór J. Erlingsson

Western democratic societies are based on the threefold division of power: Executive, legislative and judiciary. These powers are supposed to monitor each other's action along with the fourth power, public opinion and the media. These four powers shape our lives. But according to the author the fifth power has emerged in Icelandic society, as in other western societies, which is market-based science. In this article I will justify this opinion.

From the inception of modern science, in the beginning of the 19^th century, the state has had a great control over science, since it was the main financier of this activity. This was a fact well into this century. Science has had a huge public support, which partially explains its success, since its financing was based on voters voting for politicians in favor of science. With the commercialization of science a change has occurred in the relationship between the public and science. Now it is not only the voted officials that decide which branch of the sciences is financed for the public can now become stockholders in science companies. In spite of this fundamental change two key questions have not been answered: Why does the public trust scientists? How can politicians or general investors estimate the value of the science being conducted in the firm or estimate the risk they take?

Twentieth century science has increased our understanding of nature dramatically, as can be seen in quantum mechanics (I am referring to subatomic research, e.g. CERN) and biotechnology. Quantum mechanics, which was constructed in the beginning of this century, has dramatically increased our understanding of the interior of the atom, but majority of research in this field is financed by governments. Biotechnology, which only has a three-decade history, has dramatically increased our understanding of the interior of the cell, but research in this field is increasing being privatized. We finance these researches in the hope for a better live. But on what bases do we base this hope? Since the vast minority cannot base it on understanding it is based almost totally on trust (Steve Fuller, Science. Open University Press, 1997; Steve Fuller, The Governance of Science. Open University Press, 2000.). The general public, including the politicians, can neither understand nor contest what the scientists tell them; we can only hope that they do not exaggerate. It is here that scientists acquire their power, for as has long been known knowledge entails power.

This trust is based on a weaker foundation that we tend to believe. When scientists say they have found the solution for this or that the media usually accepts it uncritically and celebrates the scientists. Who does not recognize the following: Scientists at university/institute X think they have found the solution to Y. The problem with this narrative is that the media usually have no means to follow this alleged discovery. It is also a fact that sometimes the solution to Y had no foundation. Everyone who pursue science knows this, but the media is not interested in publishing stories on scientist that have failed (a notable exception to this is the bedate on cold fusion [Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem. Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1994; Charles Alan Taylor, Defining Science. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1996; William J. McKinney, „When Experiments Fail: Is Cold Fusion Science as Normal?". A House Built on Sand, edited by Noretta Koertge, Oxford University Press, 1998.]) The media further the myth of scientists being infallible and they usually repeat after scientists that science is an objective endeavor and that knowledge is acquired for knowledge sake. This naïve discussion nurtures the mythic image of science. Scientists become mythic beings who are saving our lives. Are they not? The media gives the public a very skewed picture of scientific practices and further uncritical scientism. Pall Skulason, a philosopher and the rector of the University of Iceland, has pointed out that elevation of science at the expense "of other isms [has] furthered an irrational belief in the sciences ..." and that such scientism is " dangerous for the advancement of the sciences" (Páll Skúlason, „Vísindi og samfélag (Science and Society)". Pælingar (Meditations), Reykjavík, 145-54, 1987, p. 149; „Hvað eru vísindi (What is Science)". Pælingar, Reykjavík, 131-44, 1987, p. 137.).

Science, in conjunction with the media, is becoming a fifth power in our society or even a new religious institute. Certain scientists and doctors seem to have and unlimited access to the media. If they have something to say it is immediately a front-page story. While the sciences were almost exclusively financed by the state an unrestricted access of the scientists to the media was not as important for them as it is now, for then they had only to deal with the politicians in their search for money. But with the commercialization of the sciences the opposite is the case. Now scientists, in their search for financing and power, directly benefit from the glossy image the media portray of them; that they are capable of everything. Scientists are becoming semi gods in the public mind. If this is true one can say the sciences are becoming a religious institute in modern society, for the sciences are given an unprecedented authority (Fuller, The Governance of Science, p. 9.), which enables them to become a part of a new power structure. The beacon of this institute is the infallibility of the scientist and the acquisition of knowledge for knowledge sake. But unlike God, which we are told is responsible for his creation, many scientists do not want to be responsible for their creation; that is in the hand of the politicians.

The aim of this article is to promote the sciences. I am first and foremost criticizing the sciences as an institute and how certain members of this institute use the almost blind scientism of the general public. I am also criticizing the media, as an institute, for its uncritical and purblind discussion of the sciences and their affect on modern society. In my opinion the public debate of the sciences has to be even more critical than political debate, since our understanding of what scientists are doing is much more limited. I urge the media and other responsible Icelanders to participate in an enlightened discussion of the sciences which upholds "the right to be wrong (Fuller, The Governance of Science, p. 13, 20 and 151-155.)", i.e. that individuals do not have to worry about disclosing their opinions, which is the basis of an open and democratic discussion.

Steindór J. Erlingsson -- HOME