Thesis Evanrijnswoud
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Public faces of science Experts and identity work in the boundary zone of science, policy and public debate Erwin van Rijswoud This project was funded by the former interfacultary Science & Society working group and the Faculty of Science, Computing & mathematics of Radboud University Nijmegen. Erwin van Rijswoud Public faces of science: Experts and identity work in the boundary zone of science, policy and public debate © Erwin van Rijswoud, 2012 [email protected] ISBN 978-90-818596-0-8 No part of this publication may be reproduced and/or published in print, photocopy, microfilm, audio tape or in any other manner without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Coverdesign: © Julia Ninck Blok, 2012. www.julianinckblok.com Layout: Erwin van Rijswoud Language editing: Radboud in’to Languages Printing: Ipskamp Public faces of science Experts and identity work in the boundary zone of science, policy and public debate Een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van de Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 8 maart 2012 om 13.30 uur precies door Erwin van Rijswoud geboren op 3 oktober 1979 te Rotterdam Promotor Prof. dr. H.A.E. Zwart Copromotor Dr. J.G. Marks Manuscriptcommissie Prof. dr. P. Leroy (voorzitter) Prof. dr. W.E. Bijker (Maastricht University) Prof. dr. C.M.J. van Woerkum (Universiteit Wageningen) For Hannah, Jonathan & Marjan |vii Preface What an expert is, is not easy to define. The meaning of this dissertation on public experts has changed significantly over the last four years. When I started in June 2007 to study the role of experts in a knowledge society, the focus would be on the way they handled the challenges and dilemmas that accompanied their work as public experts. In the interviews which I subsequently held, the public credibility of science (as an institute) and scientists (as individuals) was a key issue the experts discussed with me. But the theme seemed a rather innocent topic in view of what was to come. In the public and political domains a change in the role of experts set in, one that is still unfolding. The term ‘expert’ received a more negative connotation in on-going debates. Experts were no longer predominantly regarded for their relevant and critical role in the knowledge society, but fiercely contested for their role in public controversies. Since 2009 ‘my’ experts found themselves heavily discredited in public. In particular the discussion of the integrity and reliability on virology experts was and still is a persistent one. The disastrous vaccination campaign against human papilloma virus (HPV) is virology’s Waterloo, and the various parliamentary investigations into the decisionmaking regarding Novel Influenza (A) H1N1 demonstrate that infectious disease control is an issue that deeply concerns society – and not only because of its contribution to the public health. Many recent scholarly discussions on expertise and credibility take these and related examples as the starting point for analyses and try to sketch a new framework for understanding expertise. With this thesis, that started before the recent controversies set in, I present contextual and historical perspectives to the so-called crisis of expertise, and thus hope to elicit current developments. In the course of writing this thesis, I have had the joy of getting to know quite a few people that contributed to the completion of this work, either by stimulating the research or by inviting me to keep discovering the world outside academia. A first word of thanks is to the seven scientists whom I studied in this thesis. Without knowing me, from the start they allowed me to interview them on their biography and viii| Public faces of science they did not refrain from sharing their experiences as experts. Ab Osterhaus, Roel Coutinho and Jaap Goudsmit on the one hand; and Pier Vellinga, Han Vrijling, Marcel Stive and Huib de Vriend on the other all provided their personal narratives, which composed the basic and essential material for this dissertation. Without their willingness to do so the project could not have been completed in the way I aspired to. I can only hope that this book will be of value for them, perhaps providing a starting point for reflecting on what they themselves as experts do, and why they do it in that particular way. Furthermore, I would like to thank the other interviewees for their contribution. In addition, I am grateful to the former Science & Society working group for funding this research. Sadly enough, this project is the last that was funded, and I can only hope that the Radboud University will revigorate its university-wide research efforts in this area. During my time at the Radboud University I have had the pleasure of working in a research institute that is embedded in the Science faculty. I am thankful to my colleagues of the Institute for Science, Innovation & Society. The diversity of people working there and the research orientations they have, creates an open and constructive environment for doing research that spans different disciplines. I sincerely hope that despite the tumultuous developments ISIS will strengthen its position as an institute that opens science to society. Within ISIS I belonged to the Department of Philosophy and Science Studies, a department that is composed of strong and authentic characters. That stimulated me in developing an academic and normative-professional identity, and I would like to thank everybody for that. I have had the great pleasure of formerly belonging to the Center for Society & Life Sciences. Although during me time in Nijmegen I did not belong to the CSG in a formal sense, I have always felt welcome and supported. I am grateful to the students and staff of the science communication track. Roald Verhoeff, Leen Dresen and in particular Riyan van den Born, not just offered me the opportunity to take part in the different educational aspects of the track, but also granted me trust and support in making a contribution to the curriculum. Their trust and support certainly stimulated my career in science communication. Hedwig te Molder, Anne Dijkstra and the staff of ELAN have welcomed me as their science communication colleague at the University of Twente, and I feel honoured and grateful for the opportunity of working there as an assistant professor. I am looking forward to strengthening research and education in science communication, and in forging links with science education and hard core science at the University of Twente. For most of my time as a PhD researcher I have been involved in the Nijmegen PhD Council PON. I have had the pleasure of getting to know many PhD researchers and Preface |ix postdocs from Radboud University who are concerned with the different aspects of working as temporary academic staff. A special word of thanks to the Works Council, of which I was a member of the board on behalf of PON. I would like to thank Margot van den Berg and Guiselle Martha-Starink in particular. I believe that together we were a strong team, standing up for the interests of postdocs and PhD’s. I also thank different members of the Presidium. It was a great and pleasant learning experience to work with you, one I wouldn’t have wanted to miss. The graduate school WTMC provided a welcome distraction from the day-to-day routine with intense and enjoying workshops and meetings at Soeterbeeck. Talking to fellow PhD researchers about how to manage one’s project and all the struggles that working towards a doctorate entails was a great support. The academic climate was very stimulating. I would like to thank the (former) coordinators Sally Wyatt, Els Rommes, Willem Halffman and Teun Zuiderent for their skills and efforts in making these workshops and meetings a continuous success and joy. Hub Zwart, my promotor, laid the foundations for this thesis and helped me to complete it. The project he developed for the Science & Society working group formed a constructive and fascinating start. He has provided support and constructive comments, but also quite a bit of freedom and trust in my capacities to manage things. Writing a dissertation by default implies facing difficulties and making choices, and that goes for me as well. Sometimes I managed things myself, but when I consulted Hub he always had clear and convincing answers ready. That has assisted me in staying on track with a decent pace of work, and I am truly grateful for that. The nature of the project called for expertise in social science methodologies as well, and the project greatly benefited from the guidance of my co-promotor Hans Marks. Hans jumped on a running train and managed to insert critical thinking at crucial moments, for example by comparing experts with Scandinavian goblins. As an anthropologist foreign to science and technology studies, he thus stimulated me to observe things with more distance to the object of study. Despite us being relatives, the discussions were so focussed that we often forgot to talk about family life. That doesn’t mean we are not concerned about one another, and I wish you all the luck. Frans van Dam, Willem Halffman and Bert Theunissen also contributed to the supervision as members of the supervisory committee. Bert, under whom I studied in Utrecht, provided his expertise in history science and in thinking with a pleasant and constructive irony. Frans, CSG’s communications officer, shared his expertise with the topic of public experts, and was a stimulating voice in placing this project in a real time context.