0:01

As usual, welcome, and before I start talking about the readings that you need to know for

0:13

the short questions in the exam, are there any questions that you'd like to put to me

0:19

now before we start about any aspect of the course?

0:22

No, not immediately?

0:31

Okay.

0:34

Please do feel free to ask.

0:38

And of course, if you're uncomfortable with asking in this forum, just send me an email

0:42

or make an appointment to speak to me on Teams.

0:47

All right, so I'm going to go straight into the material.

0:51

I'm probably not going to keep you that long, but I do want to give you some idea of the

1:00

texts that you're going to need to know for the short questions section of the exam, which

1:06

is half of the exam.

1:09

I hope that you have already given your long questions some thought.

1:13

I know that some of you have.

1:16

The sooner you get going with that, the better.

1:19

And please do, as I said earlier, consult me if you feel like you need to do that.

1:24

Okay, so the short questions.

1:27

Well, in case you haven't picked this up, another thing I might say is that there is

1:33

a previous exam on the course Moodle page.

1:37

Just be careful of it in one respect.

1:40

This was an exam that I set before there was the long question part of the exam.

1:46

Now, the long question part of the exam now takes up half the exam.

1:51

So the exam that you'll see on the course Moodle page has twice as many short questions

1:59

as the one that you are going to do.

2:03

But the style of the questions won't change.

2:05

So in fact, it's probably more helpful to you than it otherwise would be, because you

2:08

get to see more examples of questions than you otherwise would have.

2:15

Okay, so, sorry, excuse me, it's not a cold, just something irritating my throat.

2:27

So the texts that you need to look at.

2:31

You will find them.

2:32

As I mentioned last time, let me share the course Moodle page with you.

2:40

That's not what I wanted to do.

2:44

Sorry.

2:46

I have a way of picking the thing that I didn't want to share.

2:50

No, I'm still, no matter what I click on, I'm getting the wrong thing.

2:59

Sorry about that.

3:00

You'd think I hadn't done this before, but I've done it for about six years running.

3:04

I'm going to have to get rid of that.

3:11

So can you see the course Moodle page now?

3:13

Can someone just tell me that they can?

3:19

Yes, we can.

3:20

Okay, fantastic.

3:21

All right.

3:22

So the section that I'm referring to is called pre-course reading.

3:28

That is also a bit misleading.

3:30

In fact, I need to change that heading.

3:32

Really, this is where you will find the texts that you need to know for the short questions

3:40

in the exam.

3:41

The first one, as I mentioned last week, is called policy for science, and the second

3:47

text is called science for policy.

3:49

I'm going to speak about the first one today and next Friday, and then after that, in sessions

3:55

four and five, I'll speak about science for policy.

3:59

You'll notice also that there are explanatory PowerPoint slides, and I'm going to talk you

4:04

through those today.

4:06

Well, I'll talk you through the first half of the explanatory PowerPoint slides on policy

4:12

for science today.

4:14

Next Friday, I'll talk you through the second half of that set of PowerPoint slides, and

4:20

then in sessions four and five, I'll talk you through the explanatory PowerPoint slides

4:24

on science for policy.

4:27

You'll find all of those here on the course Moodle page in the section entitled pre-course

4:33

reading and listening.

4:36

There is another set of PowerPoint slides, which is much shorter, which you also need

4:40

to know, and that is called Robert Merton's four social norms in science.

4:47

I will be referring to that today.

4:50

Okay, so let me not waste any time, and I'll get straight on to those explanatory PowerPoints.

4:56

Even once I've spoken about them in these Friday sessions, they're still worth looking

5:03

at from your point of view, because there are also voice notes on them that I put there

5:09

to explain more about the PowerPoint slides.

5:12

That will obviously duplicate to some extent what I'm saying now, but you've got three

5:17

levels here.

5:17

You've got the text itself, you've got the PowerPoint slides, which explain the text,

5:22

and then you've got voice notes, which explain the slides.

5:25

Now, I do want to emphasize that you need to read the text, and I'm not kidding about

5:30

that.

5:30

You really do need to, because you won't be able to answer the questions thoroughly enough

5:35

with just a knowledge of the PowerPoint slides.

5:38

But obviously, it is helpful to look at them, which is why I'll be talking about them now.

5:48

Sorry, just one moment.

5:52

Okay, so I'm going to switch to the slides now.

6:08

Apologies, I don't seem to be doing very well at this today.

6:12

All right, let me try that again.

6:27

Okay, I'm going to try share again.

6:35

Okay, can you see a set of PowerPoint?

6:38

Well, can you see a PowerPoint slide with the word ethics and science on it?

6:42

Yes.

6:43

Okay, fantastic.

6:44

So, all right, I'm going to talk, there are 25 slides here.

6:49

I'm going to talk you through round about the first 12 or 13 or so today, and then I'll

6:54

do the rest next Friday.

6:56

So, this section is called science, sorry, it's called policy for science.

7:05

And the one, the second text is called science for policy.

7:09

Now, one of the things you'll notice when you look at the old exam paper that I've put

7:14

on the course Moodle page, is that although I do require a certain amount of detail in

7:21

your knowledge of these texts, it's most important to me that you understand the big

7:27

picture.

7:28

So, I will talk about that quite a lot today, and you will see that the PowerPoint slides

7:34

focus on the big picture.

7:38

So, what this text, the one called policy for science is trying to do, is trying to

7:45

show us that science and politics are inextricably mixed up with each other.

7:51

So, inextricably means you can't pull them apart.

7:55

Science has a political component, and politics does concern itself with science.

8:01

It's not easy to get away or to separate the two.

8:06

Now, to make this point, the text begins with a report on a controversy from around about

8:18

20 years ago, when George W. Bush was president of the United States.

8:23

And the question arose, I'm now moving on to the second slide, whether the US government

8:28

should fund embryonic stem cell research.

8:32

Now, I'm not going to give you all the details here in class about what stem cell research

8:37

is.

8:38

You guys are scientists and you'll find it in the text.

8:42

I don't think the science is particularly difficult to understand, but I'm guessing

8:46

you may well understand it better than I do.

8:49

In any case, the point that that's important to note here is that this was controversial

8:55

because quite a few people, particularly in the United States, so this is a report from

9:00

the United States, felt that there was something unethical about using embryos in this way.

9:08

Now, try and step aside for a moment from your own beliefs about this kind of thing.

9:14

You're likely as Europeans to probably to think there's probably no problem with it.

9:18

Europeans don't usually share American views on this thing.

9:23

But there is a genuine question in a democracy whether it's fair enough to fund research

9:30

that a huge proportion of the population, say around about half, I think is unethical

9:34

or immoral in some way.

9:36

I mean, it is their tax money that is being used.

9:40

And we discussed this issue to some extent last week at the FRINV and I suspect you did

9:46

at the CETR-IV as well.

9:50

You may well not want to help research that goes against your conscience.

9:56

In the debates, presentations last week, we spoke about consent to the use of your tissues

10:03

for research.

10:04

And quite a few people mentioned the possibility that you might want to stop your cells being

10:10

used for research into things that you find unethical.

10:14

Well, the same applies here.

10:16

So the question about whether the government should fund embryonic stem cell research is

10:24

a political and an ethical question as well as a scientific question.

10:28

I don't think there's any doubt that doing this kind of research is useful scientifically.

10:33

And as you'll see, if you read the text, President Obama reversed George Bush's decision

10:38

to restrict government funding for this research.

10:42

Bush didn't, in fact, stop all research of this kind.

10:46

He allowed some of it to go ahead.

10:49

That which had begun before this issue came to his attention.

10:54

But he didn't want to start any new lines of embryonic stem cells.

10:59

He didn't want the government to fund it because, as he saw it, the large proportion

11:04

of the American public, well, not as he saw it, he was he was right about this.

11:08

The large proportion of the American public did not want their money to be spent on something

11:12

they considered unethical.

11:15

OK, so is government funding of embryonic stem cell research the right thing to do

11:24

is not a scientific question.

11:27

This is an important thing that you need to notice.

11:29

It's not a scientific question.

11:31

It's a political or an ethical question.

11:34

In this case, I think that probably amounts to the same thing.

11:38

The science is clear.

11:41

This is research that will bring results.

11:46

There is genuine knowledge to be found here.

11:49

But the question about whether we should do it or not is an ethical or political question.

11:55

So if I can put it this way, the first really big point I want to make with regard to these

12:02

texts is that not all questions about science are scientific questions.

12:08

So it doesn't help to say follow the science because there is a political or an ethical

12:14

question about whether we should follow the science.

12:17

All right, so that's the first big point.

12:20

And there are going to be quite a few sub points associated with this that I'm going

12:25

to do my best to make as clear as possible because the picture can get a little bit complicated.

12:32

As I said last week, there are about 30 pages of text in total.

12:38

And when I say 30 pages, I mean 30 pages in a Word document with a 10 point font.

12:48

So that's a fair amount of reading.

12:51

My suggestion is that you read a page a day.

12:55

I don't know how realistic that is.

12:57

There are about two months to go to the exam.

13:01

So if you read a page a day, you could read both texts twice before the exam.

13:07

When you get closer to the exam, though, I suspect that, well, I suggest that you read

13:12

it a bit more intensively than that.

13:15

And the text, as I said earlier, is not particularly easy.

13:22

It's also not crazy difficult.

13:25

It's somewhere in between.

13:27

What I mean by that is if you concentrate and read it a couple of times, you will understand

13:32

it, but you are going to have to concentrate and read it a couple of times.

13:36

So let me encourage you to get moving with that as well.

13:39

I will also say, and you've got to believe me on this, it is pretty interesting.

13:45

It's especially once you start getting into it, there are very difficult and interesting

13:50

questions there.

13:51

OK, so politics and science can't be separated that easily.

13:58

And I'll talk a little bit now about why that is.

14:01

How did we get there?

14:03

What sort of questions arise?

14:05

So the first question we've looked at now is a rather simple one.

14:09

Should the government fund something that a lot of people think is unethical?

14:13

Notice that the question here was, should the government fund it?

14:18

There is another question, which is, should the government permit private people to fund it?

14:24

In this case, there was no controversy in the United States.

14:28

Private people did fund embryonic stem cell research.

14:32

And the people who thought it was unethical, well, they didn't like it, but it wasn't their

14:38

tax money being used.

14:40

So there are two separate issues there, and you need to keep that in mind.

14:46

Government funding of ethically controversial things and private funding of ethically

14:53

controversial things.

14:54

Of course, very few of us would say that private funds can be used to research anything at all.

15:00

You have to remember that perfectly good scientific knowledge can be obtained by

15:07

completely immoral means, means that anybody nowadays would object to.

15:14

And so, obviously, many of us would feel that the government should not fund that kind of

15:21

thing.

15:22

What am I talking about?

15:23

Well, I'm not talking about controversial cases.

15:26

I'm talking about obviously wrong cases, like, for example, the kind of medical experiments

15:31

done by the Nazis or the Japanese during the Second World War, and also by various American

15:37

agencies over the last century in the United States.

15:41

And I'm guessing there are cases in other countries that I'm unaware of.

15:46

I don't want to just point a finger at those three and suggest that they are the only evil

15:50

ones.

15:52

There certainly have been cases of medical research done on human beings who did not

15:58

consent.

15:59

And we're often talking about horribly invasive medical experiments.

16:05

Note, though, that you can get real knowledge from doing that.

16:10

This is what's so tricky about the issue.

16:12

So whatever the Nazis found out about how well, how long people take to freeze or drown,

16:20

or what kind of acids have what kind of effects on people.

16:24

Well, you know, that's knowledge.

16:26

It's not lies.

16:28

It's just that they found it out in completely unethical ways.

16:34

All right.

16:36

Okay, slide three.

16:38

It's just further detail about the embryonic stem cell case.

16:45

So I'm going to move on.

16:47

All right.

16:49

So here's another important point.

16:52

So listen closely.

16:54

We must strike a balance somewhere between value-free science and science as just politics

17:01

by other means.

17:02

Now, that sounds very sensible.

17:06

I'm sure it is correct.

17:07

But what exactly does it mean?

17:11

You do need to understand this.

17:13

So I'm going to try and make it as clear as possible.

17:16

So value-free science would be science done without any concern for ethical considerations

17:23

at all.

17:26

Not many people feel that's okay.

17:28

But you can imagine scientists saying, listen, just let us do the research.

17:33

And then you decide, you, the public or the politicians, you decide what to do with the

17:39

research.

17:40

So we're just going to get on and do our thing.

17:43

And we're not going to concern ourselves with ethical issues.

17:46

So, for example, stem cell research.

17:49

Yeah, people don't like that.

17:50

Well, it's too bad.

17:52

Knowledge is what we're after.

17:54

And once we've got the knowledge, then we can talk about whether this was done decently

18:00

or not.

18:01

Okay, that would be one kind of vision, the value-free science vision.

18:05

And I think most of us would agree that we don't want that.

18:10

We don't want knowledge gathered in absolutely any way.

18:14

In particular, I'm guessing no matter what your political persuasion, you'd have an issue

18:19

with medical knowledge that was gained by torturing people, as indeed both the Nazis

18:24

and the Japanese did during the Second World War and has also been done by other people

18:31

under other circumstances.

18:33

So that's what I mean by value-free science.

18:37

We just don't care about ethics.

18:38

We're after the knowledge.

18:40

But there's another way that you can go wrong and possibly just as badly.

18:47

And that is you can say that politics or ethics has priority over the knowledge.

18:55

So the politicians decide what the scientific answers are.

19:01

There are some interesting cases of that in history.

19:05

And I would say that we're probably always in danger of allowing that to happen.

19:11

And when people put their ethical or religious or political convictions ahead of their desire

19:18

to find out the truth about something.

19:21

So they put pressure on scientists to tell them what they want to hear.

19:26

The Nazis did that also to some extent in that they had this peculiar idea that there

19:32

was this thing called German science, which was different from Jewish science.

19:37

And so they only wanted to hear German science, whereas, in fact, I think we'd all be aware

19:43

that the truth about physics or mathematics or whatever can't be German or Jewish.

19:48

It's just the truth.

19:51

Another country that has done that did quite a lot of this kind of thing was the Soviet

19:56

Union, particularly under Stalin, where communist theory dictated that certain kinds of science

20:06

must be true and others must be false, regardless of what the science actually said.

20:13

The most famous case, which you can Google if you're interested, it is quite interesting,

20:18

was a geneticist called Lysenko.

20:22

I think I'm getting the pronunciation correct because I had a Russian student tell me that

20:26

that's how you say it.

20:27

It's spelt L-Y-S-E-N-K-O, I'll just spell it in German for the benefit of those of you

20:40

who understand German, L-Y-S-E-N-K-O.

20:46

There is a Wikipedia page on this guy in most large languages.

20:53

And so the Stalinist or the communist government believed that evolution didn't function the

21:02

way that Darwin thought it functioned.

21:05

They were keen to believe that changes that took place in adult members of whatever species

21:15

could be passed on to their children.

21:18

And very, very few scientists nowadays believe that.

21:22

And so it's not very likely to be true.

21:26

But some communist bureaucrat got it in his head that communism meant that we have to

21:32

believe this.

21:33

So they told the scientists that that is what they had to believe as well, regardless of

21:38

what the evidence said.

21:40

OK, so well, after a while, they gave up on that because it clearly wasn't working.

21:46

And so that's another kind of mistake that we don't want.

21:53

We don't want the politicians or the priests or the activists to tell the scientists what

22:01

the scientific answers are, because that doesn't, that means that it's unlikely to be the truth.

22:09

It's more likely to be what these people want to hear or what they wish were the case.

22:15

So this first sentence here on slide number four is an important one, and it's quite likely

22:24

to be something that I would ask a question on in the exam.

22:29

Two ways that science can go wrong.

22:31

Value free, in other words, to hell with ethics.

22:35

We're just after the knowledge or a point of view which is in many ways the opposite.

22:42

We don't care what the truth is.

22:44

We want science to tell us what we want to believe, what we wish was true, what our political

22:50

or religious or ethical convictions tell us should be true.

22:54

So we want to hear that from the scientists.

22:56

Tell us what we want to hear.

22:59

Now, obviously, that kind of science is useless as well.

23:04

And I think what most of us would say is that what we want from science is that it informs

23:09

us that we can actually find out what's going on by means of the scientific method.

23:16

You might have been in some organization where management was very heavy handed or ruthless

23:24

or autocratic.

23:27

Now, presumably, there are some benefits to being like that.

23:29

But one thing is people below you are not likely to tell you the truth under circumstances

23:36

like that.

23:36

If they're scared of you, they'll just tell you what you want to hear.

23:40

So you may well never find out the truth about something.

23:42

And in the end, you may well pay for not having known the truth.

23:45

So that is the danger of the science as politics by other means.

23:50

So politics, science that's just politics, is of no use to society or not much use.

23:59

But value free science, well, it might be useful.

24:04

But I don't think any of us would want to be associated with a country or organization

24:12

that obtains knowledge by torture or other immoral means.

24:16

OK, so we'd want something that's in between the two.

24:21

So perhaps another way of describing this issue, though, is that there isn't a clear

24:28

line showing us where science begins and where society ends or politics ends.

24:37

Science and politics do seem to be mixed up with each other or science and ethics.

24:42

I'm using the word politics and ethics interchangeably here, although I'm aware,

24:46

of course, that they don't mean exactly the same thing.

24:50

But they are very closely related issues.

24:54

OK, moving on to slide number five.

25:00

OK, so here is another important slide.

25:06

You'll see there's a little star on the slides that I've left a voice note on.

25:12

And then you can click on the sound symbol in the middle of the slide and you'll get

25:20

a minute or two of my voice explaining things to you.

25:25

All right, so politics and science.

25:29

Well, there's a lot of politics about science nowadays, and I will explain in a while why

25:35

that is the case.

25:37

But very roughly, very, very quickly, I can tell you it's because science is big.

25:43

There's big money involved.

25:44

People like to use the phrase big science.

25:49

So then it's a political question as to who gets the money, which scientists, what kind

25:57

of research.

26:00

Science can't function today anymore without a lot of government funding.

26:06

So there will always be political discussion about what kinds of research gets done.

26:12

And governments will then decide what to fund and what not to fund.

26:19

These are not in themselves purely scientific questions.

26:23

This is a point that I've already made, and I'm just going to emphasise it here.

26:27

And politicians, frequently with advice from other people who are not politicians,

26:36

will have to decide what kind of science is important.

26:40

Now, obviously, it is partially a scientific question, or at least to the extent that

26:47

we would want to know that whatever science the government is funding, does it work?

26:52

Are we getting some real useful knowledge there?

26:55

If we're not, then presumably that's a reason not to fund that science, unless the reason

27:02

that we're not getting useful knowledge is because we haven't put enough money into it.

27:08

But the point here is a very simple one, which I think you've probably thought of

27:11

yourselves anyway.

27:13

I just mention it because it's important to keep it in mind.

27:17

The point is that political or ethical choices are being made with regard to what kind of

27:24

research gets funded and what kind of research doesn't get funded.

27:28

And of course, what the distribution of money is.

27:31

We might decide that quite a few different kinds of science should be funded.

27:36

But which kind of science gets the most?

27:38

Which kind of science gets the least?

27:41

Those are not just scientific questions.

27:45

They're also political and ethical questions, and they need to be justified in some way

27:49

or other.

27:49

In other words, politicians need to give reasons why they're giving money to this guy and not

27:56

to that guy.

27:59

And some of their reasons might be dubious.

28:01

Politicians often put forward dubious reasons for things, but they don't always.

28:07

Some of the reasons might be good reasons.

28:10

And in a democracy, you would hope also that public opinion would have some sort of a role

28:16

in deciding what kind of science gets funded and what kind of science doesn't get funded.

28:21

OK, so I don't want to be too repetitive here, but I am also going through these slides quite

28:28

quickly, I notice.

28:30

So the thing is that science has now become very big.

28:33

Bear that in mind.

28:34

I said that earlier, and it's an important point.

28:37

Science has become very big.

28:38

Science can't function without a lot of money, particularly a lot of money from the government.

28:45

We can't have something like the FINV or the TTRV without government funding.

28:50

So governments have to make political or ethical choices about where the money goes.

28:55

Let's hope they keep funding our institutions.

28:58

Certainly my impression is that they are.

29:01

So I'm grateful for that.

29:04

All right, moving on to slide number six.

29:09

OK, more important things.

29:11

The linear model and the four institutional norms.

29:16

You do need to know these things.

29:17

These are things that I'm likely to ask about in the exam as well.

29:23

Now, a sociologist, in other words, someone who studied society from the 1940s, an American

29:32

called Robert Merton, wrote a very good and very interesting text.

29:39

It's quite short.

29:41

In fact, maybe I should put it on the course Moodle page.

29:43

You may be interested in reading it.

29:44

You certainly don't have to.

29:46

And I won't examine directly on it.

29:48

But I think I'll put it on the course Moodle page for those of you who are interested.

29:53

Robert Merton tried to describe four what he calls institutional norms.

30:02

Another way of using the word norm would be to say rules.

30:07

Although I think the word norms is a bit better, but norms are somewhat like rules.

30:13

You'll see what I mean when I explain to you what these four institutional norms are.

30:21

Science's goal is to produce what Merton calls certified knowledge.

30:29

Certified knowledge, by certified, he means knowledge that was achieved by following the

30:34

correct rules of scientific research.

30:38

So not knowledge that came to you via a dream, not knowledge that came to you because your

30:43

grandmother told you, etc., etc., or because God told you, that sort of thing.

30:49

I'm not saying that you could never learn anything from dreams or your grandmother or

30:54

God, but we wouldn't want to call those things you learned scientific knowledge.

30:59

So the point of science, the point of science is to give us certified knowledge.

31:06

More and more of it.

31:08

That's what you guys are going to be spending your lives doing, quite likely, trying to

31:11

find more certified knowledge.

31:14

By the word certified, I mean here knowledge that was discovered using the correct rules

31:21

of science, the scientific method.

31:24

Now, this sociologist, Robert Merton, explained that there are four rules or norms, as he

31:32

called them, which science has to follow if it's going to achieve this goal, if it's

31:39

going to bring us certified knowledge.

31:41

I'm just going to switch to another set of PowerPoints now, the four institutional norms,

31:49

and I seem to be having issues with sharing my screen today.

31:56

So just please confirm to me now that you can, can you confirm that you can see these,

32:01

this new set of PowerPoints?

32:03

Yes, we can, yes.

32:06

Thank you, Lisa.

32:09

Okay, now, this is not super difficult, but it is really important that you understand

32:16

and memorize these four norms.

32:19

It's not a lot of detail, but you do need to understand it.

32:22

I think a fair amount of it will be obvious to you anyway.

32:27

Science doesn't work if these four norms are not followed.

32:33

I'm going to the second slide.

32:37

Okay, that's just, that's just telling you what I've already said.

32:43

Now let's go into the four norms themselves.

32:46

I actually, in fact, in Merton's original article, he calls it communism, not communalism.

32:54

But I thought that that the word communism has other connotations.

32:59

So I thought I would change it to communalism.

33:01

But if you, well, I will put the article on Moodle, and if you read it, you'll see he

33:06

uses the word communism.

33:08

For science to work, it's got to be about knowledge that is publicly available.

33:20

So scientists have to think of themselves as taking part in a communal activity.

33:27

You don't get to work in the lab so that you can find some secret knowledge that you don't

33:33

tell anybody else.

33:35

Sorry, I see I've got some orthographic problems on this.

33:41

Should have been a comma.

33:43

Okay, I need to keep my slides perfect.

33:47

All right.

33:48

So there is something wrong with science if scientists are keeping their discovery secret.

33:58

We have journals for publishing things in science because we believe in this kind of

34:01

communalism.

34:03

The whole point of scientific discovery is that you publicize it.

34:06

You tell other people what you found, and as importantly, you tell other people how

34:11

you found it so that they can check up on it, so that they can see whether following

34:18

the activities that you did, that they will come to the same conclusions.

34:24

So it's meant to be a communal endeavor.

34:28

Of course, there is a certain amount of competition between scientists and between

34:32

institutions that we wouldn't be talking about human beings if that wasn't the case.

34:38

But ideally, well, I mean, Albert Einstein didn't say, I know some secret stuff and I'm

34:45

not telling anybody.

34:47

That would have been really weird and unscientific behavior.

34:51

So it's not like that.

34:52

It's not secret knowledge that is kept away from people.

34:57

Well, I suppose I don't want to complicate the picture too much, but in one way, there

35:02

is something secret about it in that you have to be highly educated to understand it.

35:06

I mean, most of us, in fact, most even most highly educated people don't understand

35:11

Einstein's theory.

35:13

I don't know whether I should call myself highly educated.

35:15

I do have a doctorate, though, but I don't understand Einstein's theory.

35:19

So in that sense, I suppose it is being kept secret from me.

35:23

But it's not being kept secret from me in this sense.

35:27

If I took the trouble and devoted myself to the books for a while, I would be able to

35:32

understand it in the end because the information is out there.

35:36

It's not being kept away from me.

35:38

OK, so that's the first one.

35:40

Science has to be treated as a communal thing.

35:43

The second one.

35:45

Universalism.

35:46

OK, so.

35:50

The Nazis didn't believe in this, for example.

35:53

They thought that it was important to check whether the person who came up with the theory

35:58

was an Aryan, their word for a German, or a Jew, because if it was a Jew, then you probably

36:05

couldn't trust it because Jews have a different and bad way of understanding things.

36:12

Now, that goes contrary to the spirit of science.

36:17

Spirit of science.

36:18

In general, you should not be interested in whether the experiment was done by a white

36:27

person or a black person or a Muslim or a Christian or a man or a woman or a straight

36:32

person or a gay person, etc.

36:35

That is not relevant to whether the experiment being done actually produces knowledge or

36:42

not.

36:42

It also means, as you can see in the second bullet point here, that science works best

36:51

when people get to the top because they're good, not because of their ties or their race

36:58

or their religion or anything like that.

37:02

Science is supposed to be judged on a universalist basis.

37:07

In other words, it's supposed to be judged on whether the research being done is being

37:13

done correctly, not on the question of who are you.

37:17

Your identity is meant to be irrelevant.

37:22

The third one, disinterestedness.

37:25

Now, be careful, even native speakers misunderstand this word.

37:32

As an English teacher, which I do as well, I'm becoming ever more annoyed by native speakers

37:37

who don't understand the word.

37:38

So don't feel embarrassed if you didn't understand this.

37:41

But let me just put you straight here.

37:43

Disinterestedness is something different to being uninterested.

37:48

It doesn't mean the same thing at all.

37:51

Being uninterested just means I'm not interested in it.

38:00

Let me try and think of a subject I'm not interested in without being insulting.

38:04

Well, I think pottery is a wonderful thing.

38:06

I'm glad to have nice pots, but I'm not interested in it, really.

38:09

I know nothing about it, and I don't take any trouble to find out about it.

38:12

I'm uninterested in it.

38:15

I'm uninterested in Australian rules football.

38:19

I have friends from Australia who love it, but I couldn't care less about it.

38:23

It just doesn't mean anything to me.

38:27

Disinterestedness is something different, though.

38:30

Disinterestedness means, and this is another use of the word interest, disinterestedness

38:35

means you have no interest in this.

38:38

That means you do not stand to gain from something or other, from the result of a scientific

38:46

experiment in particular.

38:48

So, for example, in the law courts, a judge will, the correct English word is recuse

38:54

themselves, but you don't have to know that.

38:57

A judge recuses him or herself when they say, I'm not going to judge this case because I

39:04

have an interest in it.

39:06

Maybe one of the parties to the dispute is my son or something like that, or the outcome

39:14

of this case will affect me financially.

39:17

A judge under those circumstances, if they've got any integrity, will say, I can't take

39:23

this case because I have an interest in it.

39:25

That doesn't mean I find it interesting.

39:28

That means I stand to gain in some way or to lose.

39:31

Maybe it's one of my kids who might get punished in some way.

39:35

Or maybe my finances depend on the outcome of this case, in which case I should not be

39:42

judging it.

39:43

Now, scientists should not be pursuing research or finding out results on the basis of how

39:51

much money it will bring them.

39:54

Of course, in the real world, they do do this.

39:59

But Merton's point is science works best when scientists are disinterested.

40:06

In other words, they work to avoid personal interests influencing the outcomes of their

40:13

research.

40:15

Notice, this is quite a restricted sense of the word disinterestedness.

40:18

I shouldn't attempt to make a discovery because it will make my wife happy.

40:27

That shouldn't be why I'm doing it.

40:28

I should be just trying to find the truth.

40:30

And if the truth makes my wife unhappy, that's tough on me, possibly tough on my wife, too.

40:36

That's not what should be influencing me.

40:38

My interests should not be influencing me.

40:40

I should be just aiming at finding out what the truth is.

40:43

OK.

40:44

Fourth one.

40:51

Organised scepticism.

40:54

And this is another aspect of science that's very important.

40:58

Research should be, or the results of research should be questioned sceptically without caring

41:07

who did the research.

41:10

Organised scepticism is the word.

41:12

So according to, science works best when if somebody publishes their research, and they

41:19

publish their research, it doesn't matter whether they really important people or not.

41:26

Their research must be examined thoroughly.

41:28

So science doesn't work if, say, for example, the king does some research and publishes it

41:35

in a journal and everybody knows, oh, I better not check up on this because, you know, I

41:39

can't tell the king that his research was wrong.

41:42

If we're going to allow that sort of thing, soon science is going to stop producing truth

41:46

a lot of the time.

41:48

OK, so science works best if anybody's research is available for criticism.

42:01

You should not be able to say I'm the king or I'm an immensely powerful scientist.

42:07

I control a huge budget.

42:09

So you just leave my research alone and don't tell me whether you if you think there's a

42:13

problem with any of it.

42:15

All right.

42:15

So let me just go back over these four very quickly so you understand what's more so that

42:19

I can make it totally clear what Merton is getting at here.

42:23

His four social norms in science, he's telling us that science works best if people do follow

42:29

these rules.

42:31

He's not saying people always do.

42:34

He's not saying that deviating from them is catastrophic, although it can be.

42:40

But the more that these four rules are adhered to, the more likely science is going to produce

42:46

certified knowledge, knowledge that really is knowledge.

42:51

You will actually get the truth if you follow these four rules.

42:56

You're much more likely to.

42:58

So let me just go over them quickly again.

43:00

We're more likely to get research that is genuine and true if it's done communally,

43:08

if things are not kept secret and hidden.

43:11

We're more likely to find out the truth at the end of the research if it's done universally,

43:17

if there are not some races or religions or whatever that are favoured.

43:22

And so we're more inclined to believe them than we are others.

43:26

It should be by strictly scientific criteria that the research is judged.

43:33

Disinterestedness is closely related.

43:37

Nobody should have their personal interests entangled with the outcomes of their research.

43:46

So you should be, scientists should be attempting to find the truth regardless of whether that

43:52

truth helps them financially or not, or whether it brings them status or luck in love or whatever.

43:59

Those should not be the factors influencing what they say the truth is about their research.

44:07

And the final one, organised scepticism.

44:11

Nobody should be exempt from having their research critiqued.

44:16

Everybody's research, no matter how prestigious you are, should be open for criticism.

44:21

You need to publish it.

44:23

That's the first norm.

44:26

And every other scientist has a right to look through it and see whether this really does

44:32

work as research or not.

44:34

OK, so those are Robert Merton's four norms.

44:37

So now I'm going back to the first set of PowerPoint slides that I spoke about.

44:44

Yeah, you can see on the left hand side of the slide, to achieve its goal,

44:49

science depends on the four institutional norms.

44:53

Now, this is related, but it's not exactly the same thing.

44:59

This is the so-called linear model.

45:01

Now, you need to listen carefully again.

45:04

I know I've been speaking for quite a while already, and you may.

45:08

I'll tell you what, why don't we take a five minute break?

45:11

Because I've been saying I've been saying a lot and I've been saying it quite quickly.

45:14

And it won't hurt you to just just relax for five minutes.

45:23

Let me just look at my watch here.

45:26

It's quarter to it's quarter to three.

45:30

Why don't I start again at ten to three.

45:32

So just five minutes and I won't I won't keep you super long.

45:37

I'll stay online and you can just ask me any questions if you have any.

45:43

If you don't, then I'll just wait and start again.

45:55

Yeah, sorry.

46:00

I'm not quite sure who's trying to talk to me.

46:01

Somebody is.

46:03

More than one person.

46:05

Do you want to start, Jelena?

46:07

And if I may.

46:09

Yes, sure.

46:10

It's just a short question.

46:11

I was wondering if we need to make you an email of the long term question of the

46:19

which provided us that, you know, which one we are.

46:23

No, you don't need to do that.

46:24

I mean, if you if you want to check up with me, whether

46:29

you've got the right idea about the question.

46:32

Sure, do that.

46:34

But I don't I don't need to.

46:36

I don't need to know which of the five you're trying.

46:38

All right.

46:39

As long as although this is quite important.

46:43

If there's any doubt when you when you write the exam, you should write which one you're

46:47

answering.

46:47

Yeah, but but, you know, am I really?

46:51

They're quite different.

46:53

I'll probably notice.

46:55

OK, thank you.

46:58

There was somebody else.

46:59

But whoever it was, can you just give me 30 seconds to go and get some more water?

47:04

Sure.

47:35

OK, so just show it.

47:38

Yes, exactly.

47:41

Just first to the to the exam.

47:44

Long question.

47:46

It is possible like to kind of more specify your, let's say, general question into a bit

47:53

more specific questions.

47:56

Yes.

47:56

To answer it.

47:57

So this is possible now.

47:58

Yes, it is.

47:59

And in fact, I would suggest with with some of the questions, it's a very good idea.

48:03

In particular, the globalisation question.

48:08

Yes.

48:10

Good.

48:11

And the second question is, I was just wondering if we're just talking about this for

48:17

institutional, this for rules from Merton.

48:21

And I was wondering if like this kind of basic values or like fundamental beliefs one could

48:28

have, let's say, private liberty against common good.

48:35

Does that go into the section of of interests or is it still something else?

48:43

Yeah, that's a very good question.

48:46

I'm going to have to think about it before I answer you there.

48:49

So you don't want to be you don't want scientists to be trying with their science.

49:01

To vindicate their political points of view.

49:05

But I suppose if we're talking about political scientists, well, you know, then that doesn't

49:11

seem illegitimate.

49:13

But you don't want somebody who's doing natural science research to be trying to find an answer

49:22

that satisfies their political beliefs.

49:24

Now, I think fortunately, a lot of research probably couldn't do that either way.

49:30

So the certainly the kind of research that most people at the Theta IV and the FIMV are

49:36

doing, particularly with regard to medicine, you know, whether you believe in the common

49:44

good or you believe in private liberty, probably isn't really going to make much difference to

49:49

what you discover in the lab.

49:54

But I suppose some people might say we had a government that that had very strong and

50:03

narrow convictions about these things.

50:06

And then like the like the communist government in the Soviet Union concluded without any

50:12

scientific basis that.

50:15

Well, communism is true and communism tells us that people can change in their lifetimes

50:20

and therefore they can pass on.

50:23

So, for example, well, to use a stupid example, but, you know, a view like Lysenko's taken

50:29

to its logical conclusion would be if I spend every day in the in the gym and I become really

50:36

strong, well, then, you know, my kid will be strong because I'll pass that on.

50:40

Now, obviously, genetically speaking, that's just bullshit.

50:44

But but there was a strong pressure on Russian scientists to say things like that because

50:49

the government had come to the conclusion that their politics meant that they had to

50:53

believe that.

50:54

I mean, I don't actually think being a communist does commit you to that.

50:57

So but, you know, the intellectuals tend not to rise high in government.

51:02

It's the bureaucrats and they get rather weird ideas about what politics means.

51:08

So you want to avoid that kind of situation.

51:11

I'm not sure the two kinds of belief that you mentioned really are that susceptible to

51:15

manipulation of that kind.

51:17

I was just wondering, because I just read about this now, like growing private institutes

51:26

that doing science, like, for example, in Austria, there is this this Hayek Institute.

51:33

That's really for liberty and freedom of a single person and and and for yeah,

51:44

yeah, selbstverantwortung.

51:46

Yeah.

51:47

So and they actually actually.

51:51

Sorry, I just want to say that they actually they're actually going towards very specific

51:58

value that and they actually they they promote the science in this way.

52:05

And they they fill the scientific world with this whatever with this matter that might

52:11

be very just, yeah, one sided.

52:16

Yeah.

52:17

OK, that is an interesting case.

52:21

And Sydney, I've seen that you want to say something.

52:23

Do you want to say something right now or.

52:28

You're welcome to Sydney.

52:31

Just after after this point, I have no question.

52:34

All right.

52:35

So, Michel, I would say that there are the social sciences are more susceptible to this

52:43

kind of thing than the natural sciences.

52:45

I mean, the Russian example is is laughable because because it is actually quite difficult

52:50

to do that to the natural sciences.

52:51

And they tried.

52:52

But with the social sciences, it's it's much more likely.

52:58

The thing is, though, we're all aware what what something like the Hayek Institute would

53:04

be trying to do.

53:05

So they're not concealing it.

53:09

So it's quite possible.

53:11

And many people will say, well, I don't believe their conclusions because I don't share their

53:15

presuppositions.

53:18

I suppose, though, it could be worrying if they if enough activists of this kind manage

53:24

to capture state funded institutions and then oblige everybody to act according to their

53:32

political beliefs.

53:33

I think that would be problematic.

53:35

But I wouldn't I don't think it's problematic that people who have this belief set up an

53:39

institute and they say, this is what we believe.

53:41

We're going to try and convince you that you should believe it as well.

53:45

That that seems, you know, that seems fair enough to me.

53:48

OK, does that make sense?

53:52

Yeah, yeah, totally.

53:55

All right.

53:56

Thank you, Sydney.

54:00

Yeah, I'm not sure that I have really understood what is going with this long question.

54:09

So do we must to just we must send you something or not?

54:17

No, you don't have to submit.

54:19

OK, OK, I'm just I'm just available for it if you do want to discuss it with me.

54:25

So just to check that you do understand, you need to pick one of those five questions to

54:31

write in the exam, and that will take up half the time of the exam.

54:37

I must admit, I can't remember whether the exam is 90 minutes or 120.

54:41

I need to check that up.

54:42

I think it's 90.

54:44

So then it would be you need to be able to write for 45 minutes and without notes.

54:50

Don't forget that.

54:51

So it's a good idea to start preparing it as soon as you can.

54:56

And many people typically do get in touch with me.

55:01

As I said last week, I won't write written remarks on on a text for you.

55:07

But what I will do is if you show me the text, I'll make verbal remarks and I'll say I do this,

55:13

this and this to make to make it better, etc.

55:15

Or I'll put you straight if it seems like you've misunderstood the question.

55:19

So really, I am available for discussion about it.

55:23

And in the past, quite a few people have taken me up on that.

55:28

Not everybody, obviously, because many people are quite confident about their ability to handle it.

55:33

But there's no shame in getting in touch with me and it won't irritate me.

55:37

So, you know, I quite enjoy discussing these things.

55:40

So, Sidney, you know, get in touch with me if you want to.

55:44

Don't get in touch with me if you don't want to.

55:46

It's totally up to you.

55:47

OK, perfect. I understood now. Thank you.

55:50

OK. All right. Before I restart, any other questions?

55:57

All right. So now let me go back to sharing and hope I get it right first time now.

56:08

OK. Sorry. Do you have another question, Michel?

56:15

Oh, sorry. I'm still on the mic. No.

56:21

Oh, yeah. That's that's what confused me.

56:23

Don't worry. I didn't I didn't hear anything I did. I didn't want to hear.

56:27

I didn't want to hear.

56:30

OK. So, OK, so the linear model.

56:37

Now, this is important.

56:39

The linear model is and you need you need to understand this.

56:45

Merton was writing in 1940 during the Second World War,

56:50

and many people were shocked by what they saw as the corruption of science

56:55

by politics on the part of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.

57:00

So one of the things that they became at that time strongly convinced of

57:07

was that the best way for science to work was for science to be run by scientists.

57:16

In other words, peer review would decide what kind of science gets done.

57:21

And to put it very roughly, the the so-called linear model was a kind of deal implicit,

57:30

not spelled out, but implicit in the public's minds that the best thing to do with science

57:37

is to say to the scientists, hey, guys, you do your thing.

57:41

We're not going to interfere.

57:42

You just do whatever you feel like doing.

57:45

And then at the end of the day, that will mean that we get lots of practical

57:52

practical stuff from science.

57:55

I know that sounds a bit crude, but that is how people generally used to think.

58:00

And I say used to because this way of looking at things has come under pressure.

58:07

I'm not saying it's totally discarded.

58:10

OK, but it's taken less seriously than it used to be.

58:14

And I'll explain why.

58:16

It's to do with politics, obviously.

58:19

OK, so very roughly speaking, you'll find it explained in detail in the text.

58:25

It's not a bad idea to search for the phrase linear model when going through the text,

58:29

and you'll see some good explanations of it.

58:30

But I'll tell you now what it is.

58:33

It's the idea that it works best for a society if you just let the scientists get on with it.

58:39

You give them freedom and you give them money and you say, you guys decide.

58:45

At the end of the day, we'll get good stuff from them.

58:49

I know I'm putting it in kind of vulgar terms, but that's really what it means.

58:53

Give money, give freedom to the scientists.

58:57

Let them do what they want to do because they're scientists.

59:00

They understand science.

59:01

We don't.

59:02

You know, if they find something interesting, then they're going to do good work on it.

59:06

So give them freedom, give them money.

59:09

At the end of the day, we as a society will have good stuff.

59:12

That's the linear model.

59:14

So that's one of the reasons why there is quite a strong emphasis on academic freedom,

59:18

for example.

59:19

The idea that scientists police themselves.

59:24

They know how to do science.

59:26

They know what good science is.

59:28

Just leave them alone.

59:31

But I think as you might have guessed from what I've said earlier today,

59:37

people have started developing ethical concerns.

59:40

They started thinking, well, you know, scientists can get out of hand as well,

59:44

and they do have interests.

59:46

They're not totally disinterested.

59:49

And given how much money is now involved in science,

59:54

how much taxpayer money is involved in science,

59:57

we as the public, at least in a democratic society,

1:00:01

perhaps we shouldn't just tell them, go do whatever you want to do.

1:00:06

Because it's our money and we want to make sure we're getting value for money.

1:00:11

So the linear model presupposes that we'll get value for money

1:00:17

if we leave the scientists alone.

1:00:19

Well, we give them money and we give them freedom.

1:00:22

So we give them money and then we leave them alone.

1:00:25

That way we get the most value for money from science.

1:00:29

What I'm suggesting is that people nowadays are less convinced of that

1:00:33

than they were in Merton's time when he was writing 80 years ago.

1:00:37

I'm not telling you, though, that what Merton wrote was a load of crap.

1:00:42

It's mostly true.

1:00:45

But there are reasons why we're not quite so relaxed about it nowadays.

1:00:50

And a very obvious reason would be that we've realised

1:00:53

that science can do bad things as well as good things.

1:00:57

And Merton wrote in 1942, I think it was.

1:01:01

And as you all know, I'm guessing, in 1945, the atom bomb exploded.

1:01:07

First in the desert in New Mexico and then over two Japanese cities.

1:01:12

And then, well, there were quite a few further nuclear tests after that.

1:01:18

So whatever you think of the decision to use the atom bomb in the Second World War,

1:01:25

it can't be denied that there is now a threat to the human race that there wasn't before.

1:01:29

That scientists have brought us there.

1:01:32

So this is not, again, to suggest that scientists are evil or stupid,

1:01:37

but it is to suggest that the public now doesn't feel like just leaving them alone

1:01:42

to do whatever they feel like doing.

1:01:44

They're not quite as comfortable with that as they once were.

1:01:48

Also, since 1945, well, we've seen quite a few cases where science has gone wrong in various ways.

1:01:58

Medication that has turned out to be damaging, like, for example,

1:02:03

thalidomide, called Kontergan in German.

1:02:08

And some people at least would say that global warming is caused by scientific progress.

1:02:17

Climate change.

1:02:19

Well, it's certainly caused by increased human activity,

1:02:22

which is probably brought about by scientific knowledge.

1:02:26

So we've come to feel that science can damage as well as help.

1:02:31

So we just want to keep our eye on things a little bit more than we used to.

1:02:39

I don't want to say this too crudely because there are always exceptions,

1:02:44

but it's probably the case that up until the explosion of the atomic bomb,

1:02:51

the vast majority of people thought that science could only do good.

1:02:56

Don't take me to be saying every single human being thought that,

1:03:00

but it was a more common belief than nowadays.

1:03:05

Of course, we still like science.

1:03:07

We still want it.

1:03:08

We're still willing to pay our taxes towards it,

1:03:11

but we've become aware that it can go wrong as well.

1:03:14

So the linear model doesn't seem quite as attractive as it used to be.

1:03:19

Now we want to keep an eye on those scientists just to see what they're getting up to.

1:03:26

All right.

1:03:29

Okay, so in slide number seven, a mention is made of the so-called accountability gap.

1:03:37

Now, the accountability gap is a criticism of the linear model.

1:03:44

So the linear model assumed that scientists didn't need to justify what they were searching

1:03:53

on the basis that it would help society.

1:03:56

The idea was just leave us alone.

1:03:58

We'll just do what we feel like doing, and at the end of the day, you will benefit.

1:04:03

So there's this kind of gap.

1:04:07

It may in fact have been a correct assumption, so I'm not suggesting it's rubbish,

1:04:11

but there is something on the face of it strange about saying,

1:04:15

I will be able to help you more if I don't try to help you.

1:04:18

In other words, if I just do what I feel like doing,

1:04:22

at the end of the day, you'll get more from me.

1:04:25

I'm not saying that that can never be true.

1:04:28

There are instances in life where you don't want to try to force people to help you.

1:04:36

Well, I suppose relationships would be a very good example of that.

1:04:42

Any of you involved in a relationship, a romantic relationship, or trying to get one going,

1:04:50

it's often a good thing not to try too hard.

1:04:53

And so maybe we get more from scientists if we just leave them to do their thing,

1:04:59

just like that other person is more likely to fall for you if you don't push too hard.

1:05:05

Maybe it's like that.

1:05:08

But as I said today, it seems a little strange to us that scientists can say,

1:05:15

look, we're not trying to help you.

1:05:17

We're just doing our thing.

1:05:19

And if you leave us alone to do our thing, at the end of the day, we'll benefit you.

1:05:24

That's the accountability gap.

1:05:28

This is all rather subtle, I know.

1:05:30

I'm not saying that that is bullshit.

1:05:32

I really am not, because maybe it's true.

1:05:36

But what I am suggesting is that the public is a little more skeptical than it used to be.

1:05:42

So what is this about we just leave you to do your thing?

1:05:45

Well, we get the atom bomb at the end of the day, or we get thalidomide, or we get climate change.

1:05:53

You know, maybe it's not fair to blame scientists for those things.

1:05:55

Maybe it is.

1:05:56

But it isn't that obvious to us anyway, anymore, that science will only benefit us.

1:06:04

Because it has also brought problems.

1:06:07

I think almost everybody would say it's brought more benefits than problems.

1:06:10

But some of the problems are quite scary.

1:06:12

And you will find the occasional person who thinks it's brought more problems than benefits.

1:06:20

Okay, so that's what the accountability gap.

1:06:29

Okay, this is, oh, I see, I do have a voice note here.

1:06:32

This doesn't seem to be that important a slide.

1:06:37

Well, I think perhaps the reason I'm not finding it important is because I've actually made this

1:06:42

point.

1:06:45

So when I say, although the linear model has been criticised, it still is a dominant force

1:06:50

in political rhetoric.

1:06:52

What I'm trying to tell you is that the linear model hasn't been ditched.

1:06:57

And I'm not saying it should be ditched either.

1:07:00

I'm just saying we should look at it a bit more cautiously than we used to.

1:07:03

When Merton was writing, it seemed pretty obvious.

1:07:06

Just let the scientists get on with it.

1:07:08

And we'll all benefit from that.

1:07:10

It seems less obvious now because we've come to realise that science can bring harm as well.

1:07:21

Okay, this is just a nice definition, which you will find in the text as well, of the

1:07:30

difference between research and development.

1:07:34

Like so many things in this module, I'm going to tell you maybe the distinction isn't as

1:07:38

strong as people think.

1:07:40

But nevertheless, it's worth knowing.

1:07:43

The difference between research and development, because everybody talks about R&D, research

1:07:50

and development, in German, F&E, Forschung und Entwicklung.

1:07:57

And the way they talk about it, people think, talk as if it's just one thing.

1:08:03

But in the minds of many scientists, research is the kind of science that's done out of

1:08:12

fascination with the conceptual stuff.

1:08:14

Another word for it in English is so-called blue sky research, where you're really just

1:08:19

trying to understand the phenomena.

1:08:22

Development, though, is when you take that knowledge and you produce something that can

1:08:27

then be sold on the open market.

1:08:31

So, yeah, it's not a bad idea for you to know the difference between research and development,

1:08:36

even if you're not totally convinced that there's a hard line between them.

1:08:39

Because I might ask a question about that.

1:08:42

I might just ask you, what is the difference between the two in the exam, for example?

1:08:48

OK, I don't have a voice note on this one, which is normally an indication that it isn't

1:08:54

as important.

1:08:55

But remember, everything here is pretty important.

1:08:58

So the point being made here in slide 10 is just that it's interesting to look at the

1:09:05

ways that different countries spread their money into science and R&D.

1:09:14

And so countries tend to have different priorities.

1:09:19

Some countries prioritize the military, others prioritize biotechnology, others energy

1:09:29

technology.

1:09:30

And there may well be important ethical questions there, or at least political questions.

1:09:38

It might be interesting to see, to compare, say, the United States with Europe and Europe

1:09:45

with Japan or China and see what priorities these countries set when they make science

1:09:51

budgets.

1:09:52

And it might be a fair question afterwards to say, you know, who's doing the right thing

1:09:56

here?

1:09:57

Who's doing it better than others?

1:09:59

Or it might just be that certain things suit certain countries better than others.

1:10:03

But the point being made here, as throughout this chapter, is that there are ethical and

1:10:09

political questions here.

1:10:10

It's not just a question of science.

1:10:12

Why does the United States spend so much more on the military than, say, Japan does?

1:10:18

Why does Japan spend more on energy than Europe does?

1:10:22

Why does the United States spend more on biotechnology than Europe does, for example?

1:10:26

So, is it just because different countries are in different positions and have different

1:10:33

cultures, or is it because some of them are behaving more ethically than others?

1:10:38

These are all not purely scientific questions.

1:10:44

Okay.

1:10:47

All right.

1:10:50

I'm thinking that maybe I've said enough for today, because this is a nice point to

1:10:57

stop at the end of policies for science budgets.

1:11:01

It's not quite halfway, but I'm just having the feeling that I've dumped quite a lot on

1:11:06

you guys.

1:11:07

I've spoken without really taking much of a break, and I've given you quite a lot of

1:11:14

information, which I think it might be wise for you to think about.

1:11:19

I would suggest you go and read the text.

1:11:23

Well, okay, I also just said that you should read one page a day.

1:11:26

I don't know whether that fits with this.

1:11:27

Possibly it does.

1:11:29

I think I've probably spoken up to about page seven.

1:11:32

Yeah, I think I probably have, of the first text.

1:11:36

So, if you take the next week to read the first half, up until the end of the section

1:11:42

called policies for science budgets, you might have some questions for me next week, and

1:11:47

we can discuss them, and then I'll talk about the rest of the setting.

1:11:52

So, yeah, I think this is probably a good place for me to stop.

1:11:56

I think you've got enough to think about for now.

1:11:59

And so, next week, I'll do the second half of this chapter, sorry, the text.

1:12:04

In other words, from slide 11 till the end.

1:12:09

Okay, so, ah, one other thing I haven't quite resolved yet, and that is where to put the

1:12:19

recording.

1:12:20

If you're from the FINV, all you need to do is come back to this meeting, and then

1:12:24

you'll be able to read the, I'm sorry, you'll be able to listen to the recording.

1:12:27

But if you're from the CETA-RV, Sydney, I know you're an unusual case, you might be

1:12:34

able to access it.

1:12:35

I'm not 100% certain of that.

1:12:39

CETA-RV students, I'm sorry, I have not yet resolved that, but no fear.

1:12:45

I know I had this issue last year, and I know I resolved it, and I went through my emails

1:12:50

this morning, and I couldn't find where I got the advice about how exactly to do it.

1:12:54

But I will resolve that with IT next week.

1:12:56

And then you'll have access to the recordings as well, right until the end of the module.

1:13:02

So, so I would suggest you have a look through this material, and then bring any, any

1:13:09

questions, anything, anything you think is unclear, any questions you might have about

1:13:14

what sort of questions I'm likely to ask in the exam.

1:13:18

You're very welcome.

1:13:19

Look, I haven't set the exam yet.

1:13:21

So there's, you know, there's a limit to how much I can help you there.

1:13:24

But saying to me, is this the kind of thing you might ask is a perfectly fair question.

1:13:32

Okay, so I'm going to say, have a good weekend.

1:13:37

And, and you're welcome to leave if you want to.

1:13:42

But I'll stick around for a bit in case some of you have some questions.

1:13:46

But if you don't, as I said, have a good weekend.

1:13:53

Thank you.

1:13:53

Thank you, you too.

1:13:56

You too.

1:14:30

Thank you.

1:14:31

Bye.

1:14:32

Bye.