Joseph Ben-David (1)

In The Scientist’s Role in Society: A Comparative Study, Joseph Ben-David examines “the emergence and the development of the social role of the scientists, and of the organization of scientific work. The subject matter is the social conditions, and, to some extent, the effects of scientific activity, and not the sociology of the contents of scientific knowledge” (pg. vii). He moves chronologically through time beginning with ancient Greece. Ben-David argues, “The value attached to science by society, the interest in making new discoveries contrasted to the preservation of old traditions, the transmission and diffusion of scientific knowledge, the organization of research, and the uses made of science or scientific activity in general are all eminently sociological phenomena” (pg. 2). He continues, “There are four approaches to the sociology of science: an interactional study of either scientific activity or the conceptual and logical structure of science, and an institutional study of the same two aspects” (pg. 2).
Examining ancient Greece, Ben-David argues, “Even if it could be shown that a few individuals developed a self-image comparable to that of the modern scientist (which is doubtful), this would still not prove that there had emerged a publicly recognized role of the ‘scientist,’ which was different from that prevailing in other traditional societies. Irrespective of any individual inclinations or personal scales of preference, the Greek public viewed the scientist either as a philosopher, or, if as a specialist, as a person with a peculiar interest of no great social significance” (pg. 42). While early universities primarily trained lawyers and other bureaucrats, “in other parts of Europe the cause of science was taken up by a class of persons who stood to gain from changes in the social order” (pg. 59). In this way, “the development of science depended on he determination of the minority who believed in science to fight for its general recognition openly and to express and develop its interest in science in public discussion and purposeful association” (pg. 68).
Later, “at the stage of institutionalization, much intellectual stimulation generated by science came to be dispersed over a wide range of activities to which science was applied. As a result, there might have been a relative decline of interest in science as narrowly defined, although the decline was probably more than counterbalanced by the application of a scientific approach to all kinds of other activities” (pg. 80). Moving forward, “by the middle of the nineteenth century, practically all scientists in Germany were either university teachers or students, and they worked more and more in groups consisting of a master and several disciples” (pg. 108). In this way, “a country where the scientific movement was weak could still become a scientifically leading country as a result of support given to a relatively independent and socially insulated system of higher education and research. That support was given on grounds unrelated to the acceptance of science as a value in itself” (pg. 109).
In the United States, “in agriculture, education, sociology, and eventually in nuclear research the universities pioneered research on a scale that far exceeded the needs of training students and was, from the very outset, an operation distinct from teaching. By 1900 the research organizations developed in some of the schools of agriculture, medicine, and even in basic scientific departments became a challenge to European science” (pg. 146). Meanwhile, American “scientists have become less identified with their universities than with their discipline, although usually they very much prefer to work in the atmosphere of a university. There exists a professional community of scientists or scholars in each field, and one’s standing in this community is a more important matter than in other countries” (pg. 158).
Ben-David concludes of the scientist’s role in society, “Because the benefits of science are shared by all, it cannot be expected that individuals or local groups will adequately support it. This argument is true as far as basic science is concerned. But in mission-oriented science the central government cannot be considered as the representative of the whole society, since it does not perform the functions of society” (pg. 179).… (meer)