1988/08/01 by Melanie Smallman, E. Kontizas, D. H. Morgan +2 · 2 citations
Decision Sciences · Physics and Astronomy · Social Sciences · #Climate Change Communication and Perception #Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration #Risk Perception and Management #Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
paper · doi:10.1177/0306312719879768
openalex publication_date 1988/08/01 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/23
That policymakers adopt technoscientific viewpoints and lack reflexivity is a common criticism of scientific decision-making, particularly in response to moves to democratize science. Drawing on interviews with UK-based national policymakers, I argue that an elite sociotechnical imaginary of 'science to the rescue' shapes how public perspectives are heard and distinguishes what is considered to be legitimate expertise. The machinery of policy-making has become shaped around this imaginary - particularly its focus on science as a problem-solver and on social and ethical issues as 'nothing to do with the science' - and this gives this viewpoint its power, persistence and endurance. With this imaginary at the heart of policy-making machinery, regardless of the perspectives of the policymakers, alternative views of science are either forced to take the form of the elite imaginary in order to be processed, or they simply cannot be accounted for within the policy-making processes. In this way, the elite sociotechnical imaginary (and technoscientific viewpoint) is enacted, but also elicited and perpetuated, without the need for policymakers to engage with or even be aware of the imaginary underpinning their actions.