323 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) one that is scientific-technical. This opens play (or makes it more explicit), not only for discussion on research prior- ities (agenda), but also for the incorporation of values and preferences of a larger set of actors. Consequently, according to this analysis, knowledge production processes are explicitly more reflexive, and are more openly called upon to include dimensions of social responsibility. e) Social control in quality assessment: In traditional science or Mode 1, quality control is based on values and criteria that are intrinsic to the scientific field. In contrast, in Mode 2, criteria and logics of assessment and certification over- lap. The application context incorporates greater diversity in the values, interests and criteria to be brought into play to judge research quality, actors’ trajectories (other types of competences are also assessed). The circle of experts coexists with other evaluation and accreditation bodies. Nevertheless, and this is also acknowledged by Gibbons and associates, the loss of experts’ hegemony in judging knowledge production does not occur without conflict, and affects assessment criteria reliability. f) Contextualisation: The greater permeability and interrela- tionship between the spheres of science and society inMode 2 entails an interactive approach to science. Gibbons refers to context-sensitive science (Gibbons 2000), which involves a process of science-society co-evolution (Gibbons et al. 1994, Gibbons 1999)8. The authors also define the Mode 2 society to be analysed; on the one hand, the profound social changes (technological advances, state-market relationship, massification of education, media and information devel- opment, etc.) and, on the other, the new inverse commu- nication relationship where society is no longer a context surrounding science but is presented as a set of dynamics, trends and demands that permeate the science-society rela- tionship (Gibbons et al. 1994, Gibbons 1999)9. 8 For the authors, the “contextualisation of science” has been an evolutionary and dynamic process between contextualisation and resistance, and must be understood in the light of co-evolutionary processes. (Nowotny et al. 2001: 99). 9 Gibbons and associates make it clear that “all knowledge is contextualised”, the qualitative shift in this approach lies in accepting that both internal and external criteria are applied to science. Underpinning this is the explicit recognition that a broader social context is part of scientific dynamics (Nowotny et al. 2001: 154).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz