The Silences of Science

通过一系列的三个工作坊，科学网络的沉默将审视科学既依赖于多产又依赖于沉默这一悖论的不同方面。它将寻求质疑这样一种假设，即开放和有效的交流渠道总是对科学和社会最大的好处。讨论科学传播的理论和实践通常强调消除障碍(例如，科学家和公民之间的障碍)和减少扭曲(例如，媒体中的科学不准确和失实陈述)。对科学知识的有限获取成为道德谴责的对象，而最大化的交流往往被视为一种无可置疑的社会公益。然而，科学及其传播在很大程度上依赖于间断、障碍和漏洞，就像依赖于信息的自由流动一样。与科学作为开放企业的理想相反，科学创新和科学商业依赖于不断使用限制而不是鼓励思想交流的道德、法律和技术手段。例如，信息产权程序关闭了通往科学界的信息流，即使它们使一个想法随后能够进行商业开发。同样，对剽窃的恐惧可能会从根本上限制科学家公开讨论他们的工作的意愿。来自不同学科的人文学者已经提请人们注意沉默的建设性作用--从文学中停顿和遗漏的意义，到宗教历史中孤独和平静的作用，或者沉默在法律体系中的使用。然而，到目前为止，这种利益一直是零星的，主要是针对纪律利益。特别是，没有人试图利用这项工作为科学实践和传播的研究提供信息。科学研究网络的沉默将汇集一系列学者--例如，来自文学研究、媒体研究、法律研究、宗教研究，以及来自科学史和科学哲学、政策研究和科学传播研究的学者--他们能够借鉴各自学科的见解，以建立一个概念框架，用来审查沉默在科学中的作用。讲习班形式促进跨学科合作，旨在促进学术参与者之间的新研究。该网络还将包括从事科学工作的科学家和从事科学政策工作的人，目的是向研究交流实践和政策提供信息。

Through a series of three workshops, the Silences of Science network will examine different aspects of the paradox that science depends both on prolixity and on reticence. It will seek to interrogate the assumption that open and efficient channels of communication are always of greatest benefit to science and to society. It aims to draw the attention of the research community to the creative importance of silence, of interruptions in communication, of isolation and of 'stuckness'.Discussion of the theory and practice of science communication typically emphasises the removal of barriers (for example, between scientist and citizen) and the reduction of distortion (scientific inaccuracy and misrepresentation in the media). Restricted access to scientific knowledge becomes the object of moral censure, whilst maximised communication is frequently taken as an unquestioned social good. However, science - and its communication - depends as much on discontinuities, on barriers and lacunae, as it does on the free flow of information. Contrary to the ideal of science as an open enterprise, scientific innovation and scientific commerce rely on the constant use of moral, legal and technical devices that restrict, rather than encourage, the sharing of ideas. For instance, Information Property Rights procedures close off the flow of information to the scientific community, even as they enable the subsequent commercial development of an idea. Likewise, fear of plagiarism can radically restrict scientists' willingness to discuss their work openly.Humanities scholars from a range of disciplines have drawn attention to the constructive role of silence - from the meaningfulness of pauses and omissions in literature, to the role of solitude and quietude in the history of religion, or the uses of silence within the legal system. However, to date such interests have been sporadic and largely directed towards disciplinary interests. In particular, there has been no attempt to draw on this work to inform the study of the practice and communication of science.The Silences of Science research network will bring together a range of scholars - for instance, from literary studies, media studies, legal studies, religious studies, as well as from the history and philosophy of science, policy studies and science communication studies - who are able to draw on insights from their disciplines in order to develop a conceptual framework with which to examine the role of silence within the sciences. The workshop format facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration and is intended to stimulate novel research among the academic participants.The network will also include practising scientists and those working in science policy, with the aim of informing research communication practice and policy.