Philosophers of science have in recent years presented arguments in favour of increasing cognitive diversity, diversity of social locations, and diversity of values and interests in science. Some of these arguments align with important aims in contemporary science policy. The policy aims have led to the development of institutional measures and instruments that are supposed to increase diversity in science and in the governance of science. The links between the philosophical arguments and the institutional measures have not gone unnoticed. Philosophers (...) have even explicitly suggested that institutional measures could be used to increase diversity in science. But philosophical criticisms of the existing institutional instruments have also been presented. Here I review some recent case studies in which philosophers examine actual attempts to increase diversity in science by using institutional measures implemented from the top down—attempts that have failed in one way or another. These studies examine attempts to involve citizens or stakeholders in the governance of science and technology and attempts to increase the number of interdisciplinary collaborations. They draw attention to the limitations of such instruments, calling into question the most optimistic visions of using institutional instruments to increase diversity in science. (shrink)

In a scenario characterized by unpredictable developments, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological models have played a leading part, having been especially widely deployed for forecasting purposes. In this paper, two real-world examples of modeling are examined in support of the proposition that science can convey inconsistent as well as genuinely perspectival representations of the world. Reciprocally inconsistent outcomes are grounded on incompatible assumptions, whereas perspectival outcomes are grounded on compatible assumptions and illuminate different aspects of the same object (...) of interest. In both cases, models should be viewed as expressions of specific assumptions and unconstrained choices on the part of those designing them. The coexistence of a variety of models reflects a primary feature of science, namely its pluralism. It is herein proposed that recent over-exposure to science’s inner workings and disputes such as those pertaining to models, may have led the public to perceive pluralism as a flaw—or more specifically, as disunity or fragmentation, which in turn may have been interpreted as a sign of unreliability. In conclusion, given the inescapability of pluralism, suggestions are offered as to how to counteract distorted perceptions of science, and thereby enhance scientific literacy. (shrink)

Trust in science post-Covid appears to be a complex matter. On the one hand, the COVID-19 pandemic added value to the epistemic trustworthiness of scientific opinion and its potential to drive evidence-based policies, while it also spurred scientific distrust and societal polarization (e.g., vaccines), especially on social media. In this work we sought to understand the ways in which trust in science might be bolstered by adopting a multistakeholder perspective. This objective was achieved by considering stakeholders’ views on (a) _how_ (...) perceived key actors affect trust in science, and (b) _what_ proposed actions can be taken by each actor identified. Data were collected using 16 focus groups and 10 individual interviews across different European contexts with general public (_n_ = 66), journalists (_n_ = 23) and scientists (_n_ = 35), and were analysed using thematic analysis. Regarding _how_ perceived key actors affect trust in science, participants viewed policymakers, media, scientific and social media actors as occupying a dual function (facilitators and hinderers of trust in science), and pointed to the value of multi-actor collaboration. Regarding _what_ actions should be taken for enhancing trust in science, participants indicated the value of enhancing understanding of scientific integrity and practices, through science literacy and science communication, and also pointed to social media platform regulation. Implications stemming from the data are discussed, considering how multiple identified stewards of trust can contribute to an ecosystem of trust. (shrink)