Harvard University, Department of the History of Science, 1 Oxford Street, 371, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2022 Apr;92:27-35. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.01.013. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
This paper examines debates about the "planning of science" that took place in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States and Britain and argues for their enduring relevance to today's philosophical literature on scientific pursuitworthiness. In addition to proposing desiderata for scientific pursuit that retain philosophical interest, such as social utility, coordination between branches of science, and the comprehensive development of science as a whole, advocates of the planning of science shared a sense of the inextricable relationship between the philosophy of scientific pursuit and the political economy of science, including the structure of science funding and scientific institutions. Critics of the planning of science were alarmed by the movement's socialist political orientation and developed a rival account of scientific pursuit framed by the economic metaphor of the independent businessman or entrepreneur. Taking advantage of the red scare in the United States in the early years of the Cold War, advocates of scientific entrepreneurship seized the upper hand over advocates of science planning during the shaping of the postwar American science policy regime. According to the science-as-entrepreneurship view, the role of science policy was only to make judgments about which individuals seemed best equipped, due to their personal intellectual or moral virtues, to make decisions about pursuitworthiness. The ultimate triumph of this view over the planning of science opened up a gap between the philosophy of pursuit and the political economy of science that persists to the present day.
本文考察了 20 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代在美国和英国发生的关于“科学规划”的争论，并认为这些争论对当今科学追求值得性的哲学文献具有持久的相关性。除了提出具有哲学意义的科学追求目标，如社会效用、科学分支之间的协调以及科学作为一个整体的全面发展之外，科学规划的倡导者还意识到科学追求的哲学与科学的政治经济学之间不可分割的关系，包括科学资金和科学机构的结构。科学规划的批评者对该运动的社会主义政治倾向感到震惊，并以独立商人或企业家的经济隐喻为框架，发展了一种科学追求的对立观点。利用冷战初期美国的红色恐慌，科学创业的倡导者在塑造战后美国科学政策体制的过程中占据了上风，战胜了科学规划的倡导者。根据科学创业观，科学政策的作用只是对哪些个人由于其个人的智力或道德美德而最有能力做出值得追求的决策做出判断。这种观点对科学规划的最终胜利，导致了追求的哲学和科学的政治经济学之间的差距一直持续到今天。
