Gestalt of scientific institutions

This is one of my favorite topics. Though it wasn’t explicitly labeled as such, it deals with several topics including Governance, public outreach and “Gestalt”. According to Oxford American Dictionary, Gestalt is “An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts”. In Gestalt theory, the whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts, but it also influences those parts. Far from random, the “emergence” of these forms of governance and public outreach are an expression of each culture’s Democratic “Gestalt”, or way of seeing the world.

We have several examples of this. The British organization, Demos is itself an expression of the history of culture of the English in their efforts to deal with science and technology in society.

Then, there is Rayner’s descriptions of Trust. He starts out describing the public’s deficit in understanding the facts (“Version I”), processes and limits (“Version II”). Then, he proposes a “Version III”, or public’s deficit of Trust. By using the first two versions, scientists can use the psychological crutch of projection or shield of externality. The third offers scientists an opportunity for internal re-evaluation. The teat upon which the scientific community suckles is connected to a sacred cow of institutional authority. Their role in society has been protected via politicians by the fact that politicians use science as the measure for viability and legitimacy in policy making. Treating scientists like the new priests or Kohens of modern society, if it doesn’t pass scientific muster, then forget about it.

But, who decides who gets to be anointed as representatives of the one true god, aka: “Scientific Truth” (note deliberate usage of capital and lower case letters here)? To what degree are we orthodox, heretical or even secular about science? This is where public trust comes in. Some versions of cultural Gestalt would trust a popular scientist or group of scientists, thereby conferring an authority over the nature of reality to them, and sticking by that version no matter what. They might be called orthodox. Others have different ideas, which may be seen as heretical by the other scientists or the en vogue scientific community. The last group, “secularists”, would make their judgements using scales of measurement other than science.

Demos, as an organization is a product of European sensibilities. This is a secular European vision, rather than an orthodox one. Sure there are pockets and instances of orthodoxy in both Europe and the US, but from a Gestalt perspective, I believe it fair to say that they are more secular than their American counterparts. Thus, a call for more upstream public involvement in science makes sense coming from Demos.

Religion is not democratic, per se. But there are parallels to be drawn between the functioning of democracies and the functioning of religions. We could explore many parallels and narratives on this theme. One example is religious hierarchy vs. the scientific community, in which there are also hierarchies, actors and institutions. Some religions have traditions and Gestalts where questioning is part of the culture. Challenges are welcome and it’s all part of the dialog. Others religions are less open to challenges and seek to exercise a greater amount of authority over the “party line” or Dogma. Governments and societies sometimes act this way as well in relation to scientific thought. When institutional power is challenged, how does the community react? This dynamic is explored nicely in Wynne and Felt’s chapter 2 “Reinventing Innovation”. (Wynne, Felt, 2007)

So, to sum it up, the reflections of societal institutions are visible in the scientific institutions as an image in a mirror draped with gauze. Shadows and shapes of similarities, but not exact representations. Changes in scientific institutions may come slowly or quick, but they will come in time.