Scientific community
| Part of a series on |
| Science |
|---|
 |
| General |
| Branches |
| In society |
The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting
History of scientific communities
The eighteenth century had some societies made up of men who studied nature, also known as
For instance, the term scientist was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and the wider acceptance of the term along with the growth of specialized societies allowed for researchers to see themselves as a part of a wider imagined community, similar to the concept of nationhood.[2]
Membership, status and interactions
Membership in the community is generally, but not exclusively, a function of education, employment status, research activity and institutional affiliation. Status within the community is highly correlated with publication record,[5] and also depends on the status within the institution and the status of the institution.[6] Researchers can hold roles of different degrees of influence inside the scientific community. Researchers of a stronger influence can act as mentors for early career researchers and steer the direction of research in the community like agenda setters.[6] Scientists are usually trained in
.Members of the same community do not need to work together.
Speaking for the scientific community
Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of few learned societies and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies or individuals which can be said today to speak for all science or all scientists. This is partly due to the specialized training most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all the other fields of the sciences. For instance, due to the increasing complexity of information and specialization of scientists, most of the cutting-edge research today is done by well funded groups of scientists, rather than individuals.[7] However, there are still multiple societies and academies in many countries which help consolidate some opinions and research to help guide public discussions on matters of policy and government-funded research. For example, the United States' National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and United Kingdom's Royal Society sometimes act as surrogates when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by policy makers or the national government, but the statements of the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in a given community since membership is often exclusive, their commissions are explicitly focused on serving their governments, and they have never "shown systematic interest in what rank-and-file scientists think about scientific matters".[8] Exclusivity of membership in these types of organizations can be seen in their election processes in which only existing members can officially nominate others for candidacy of membership.[9][10] It is very unusual for organizations like the National Academy of Science to engage in external research projects since they normally focus on preparing scientific reports for government agencies.[11] An example of how rarely the NAS engages in external and active research can be seen in its struggle to prepare and overcome hurdles, due to its lack of experience in coordinating research grants and major research programs on the environment and health.[11]
Nevertheless, general scientific consensus is a concept which is often referred to when dealing with questions that can be subject to scientific methodology. While the consensus opinion of the community is not always easy to ascertain or fix due to paradigm shifting, generally the standards and utility of the scientific method have tended to ensure, to some degree, that scientists agree on some general corpus of facts explicated by scientific theory while rejecting some ideas which run counter to this realization. The concept of scientific consensus is very important to science pedagogy, the evaluation of new ideas, and research funding. Sometimes it is argued that there is a closed shop bias within the scientific community toward new ideas. Protoscience, fringe science, and pseudoscience have been topics that discuss demarcation problems. In response to this some non-consensus claims skeptical organizations, not research institutions, have devoted considerable amounts of time and money contesting ideas which run counter to general agreement on a particular topic.
Political controversies
The high regard with which scientific results are held in Western society has caused a number of
In the decades following
In the last decades or so, both
See also
- Academic discipline
- Cudos
- Epistemology
- International community
- Normal science
- Objectivity (philosophy)
- Scientific consensus
- Scientific communication
- Extended peer community
References
- ^ S2CID 1322857.
- ^ ISBN 978-0226089287.
- William Walker, ref. NPG 1075a, National Portrait Gallery, London, accessed February 2010
- .
- ISBN 9780226668017.
- ^ S2CID 142732725.
- PMID 23364725.
- ISBN 9781840468045.
- PMID 16586925.
- ^ "Election to the Fellowship of the Royal Society". Archived from the original on 13 July 2015. Retrieved 24 January 2013.
- ^ PMID 23426305.
- ^ Page 37 John Hedley Brooke: Science and Religion – Some Historical Perspectives, Cambridge 1991
- ^ "Galileo Project - Pope Urban VIII Biography".
- ISBN 978-0-8018-7038-5.
- Sociologies of science
- ISBN 9780691094182.
- ISBN 9780674044449.
- ISBN 9780691083933.
- ISBN 9780674258945.
- History and philosophy of science
- LCCN 2011042476.
- Alan Chalmers - What is this thing called science
- Other articles
- Höhle, Ester (2015). From apprentice to agenda-setter: comparative analysis of the influence of contract conditions on roles in the scientific community. Studies in Higher Education 40(8), 1423–1437.