Doctoral Dissertation Research in Science of Science and Innovation Policy: From Cycles to Spirals: Structural Analysis of Scientific Consensus Formation

科学与创新政策博士论文研究：从循环到螺旋：科学共识形成的结构分析

• 批准号: 0965432
• 负责人: Peter Bearman
• 金额: $ 0.32万
• 依托单位: Columbia University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2010
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2010-04-15 至 2011-03-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0965432&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Science; Innovation

The project develops a new strategy to explain and measure scientific consensus formation. It develops a quantitative measure of scientific consensus, based on an analysis of the structure of scientific citation networks. The measure is validated by exploiting changing consensus levels across time regarding several scientific propositions, such as "smoking causes cancer", "Human activity causes a climate change", etc. The analysis reveals a surprising dynamic of consensus formation in one case - the carcinogenicity of smoking - during the 1970s (before scientific consensus on the issue was consider a fact). The work is validated by qualitative, in depth interviews with the scientists who produced these high contestation levels through their work on developing a safer cigarette.Intellectual Merit: The project advances the literature in three ways. First, the research develops a model for the process of consensus formation in science. Second, the project develops a new metric that measures consensus/contestation degree in scientific literatures. Finally, the research develops a new approach to account for temporality in scientific debates.This project contributes to the history of science by explaining why claims such as "Coffee (does not) cause cancer" are accepted with no contestation, while the climate change claim met social contestation coupled with minor scientific contestation, and the carcinogenicity of smoking met social contestation coupled with surprising scientific contestation. Broader impact: This project offers a new property for comparative research into science policy, supplying a measure of scientific consensus levels that may be utilized over multiple dimensions, including time, space and social organization. The project offers a way of informing the public and policy makers on important scientific issues; currently, scientific claims are often discarded as "premature" or "inconclusive", while the experts promoting them may be considered to be promoting a political agenda. The proposed approach overrides such claims by evaluating consensus without expert interpretation, relying solely on the structure of scientific literature.

该项目开发了一种新的策略来解释和衡量科学共识的形成。它基于对科学引文网络结构的分析，开发了一种科学共识的定量测量方法。该措施是通过利用几个科学命题不断变化的共识水平来验证的，例如“吸烟导致癌症”、“人类活动导致气候变化”等。该分析揭示了在20世纪70年代（在科学界就吸烟致癌性达成共识被认为是事实之前）的一个案例中，共识形成的惊人动态。这项工作是通过对科学家进行定性的深入采访来验证的，这些科学家在开发更安全的香烟的过程中产生了这些高争议水平。知识价值：该项目在三个方面推进了文献。首先，本研究建立了科学共识形成过程的模型。其次，该项目开发了一种新的度量标准来衡量科学文献中的共识/争议程度。最后，该研究开发了一种新的方法来解释科学辩论中的时间性。这个项目通过解释为什么诸如“咖啡（不）致癌”这样的说法被毫无争议地接受，而气候变化的说法遇到了社会争议和轻微的科学争议，吸烟的致癌性遇到了社会争议和令人惊讶的科学争议，从而为科学史做出了贡献。更广泛的影响：该项目为科学政策的比较研究提供了一种新的特性，提供了一种可以在多个维度（包括时间、空间和社会组织）上使用的科学共识水平的衡量标准。该项目提供了一种向公众和决策者通报重要科学问题的途径；目前，科学主张经常因为“不成熟”或“不确定”而被抛弃，而推动这些主张的专家可能被认为是在推动一项政治议程。拟议的方法通过评估共识而不需要专家解释，完全依赖于科学文献的结构，从而推翻了这些主张。