Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:58:26 +0000 From: Robert Maxwell Young <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Essay on Malthus & Darwin: then & now I have placed the following essay on my web site: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/papers/index.html There are a number of other essays and a couple of books on matters Darwinian and Malthusian at the site, as well. Feedback very welcome. Best, Bob Young 'Malthus on Man - In Animals no Moral Restraint' 59K Thirty years ago I wrote an article on the common context of biological and social theory, using Malthus as a key text and exploring how various writers had read him and had come up with very different conclusions: William Paley, Thomas Chalmers, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Marx and Engels. This article generated a number of commentaries and refutations, primarily seeking to disprove my conclusions about the connection between Darwin and Malthus and the role of Malthus in the origination of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I have stood my ground and have argued that quite a lot hangs on the connection. On the occasion of the first invitation I have ever had to deliver a paper to a conference of the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine (an ideologically and personally antagonistic director having been forcibly retired), I took the opportinity to reflect on this controversy, bring in some new evidence and draw philosophical conclusions about the role of praxis in human nature, as sanctioned by the first professional social scientist and the founder of modern evolutionary theory. I also urge modern Darwinians to emulate these eminent forbearers in granting a role for praxis in human nature. The paper was presented to a conference on 'Malthus, Medicine and Science' organised by Roy Porter at the Wellcome Institute, London, on 20 March 1998. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:05:17 +0000 From: Steve Fuller <[log in to unmask]> SUMMARY OF THE FIRST GLOBAL CYBERCONFERENCE ON PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE The first global cyberconference on Public Understanding of Science, a two-week affair from 25 February to 11 March, 1998, has been recently concluded. The proceedings, which consist of 200 responses to 35 opening statements, may be accessed at http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dss0www1/. Sponsored by the UK's Economic and Social Research Council's New Opportunities Programme, the conference was moderated by Professor Steve Fuller of Durham University, with technical support from Andrew Stansfield and Counterbalance, a nonprofit organization based in Seattle, USA. Over the two week period, the conference web board received nearly 2000 hits from 35 countries on every continent. Although the conference is now closed, a version of it may be reactivated in the future. Further information about the nature and content of the conference may be obtained by contacting [log in to unmask] The aim of the conference was to canvass the different meanings attached to the expression 'public understanding of science', and the extent to which these meanings represent convergent, parallel or conflicting agendas. Some of the discussion focussed on issues relevant to distinct regions of the world, including the following: *** The relationship between science and development in Latin American settings *** The manipulation of scientific uncertainty in Australian environmental politics *** The compatibility of science and religion in Christianity (especially in the US) and Islam *** The difficulty of motivating the 'public understanding of science' as a project in France and East Asia *** The role of 'public understanding of science' in fostering racial integration in South Africa *** Public decision-making on the future of genetic engineering research in Switzerland Broader issues that attracted cross-cultural discussion included: *** Would 'public understanding of science' be regarded as an interesting area of research and funding without the belief that some group or other -- either scientists or non- scientists -- is suffering from a 'deficit' in their understanding of something or other? What would a non-deficit- based 'public understanding of science' look like? *** Is 'public understanding of science' something that should be integrated into the education of scientists, the general public, and/or expert specialists in 'science communication'? Does it first require mastery of the technical content of some science? To what extent can it be instilled outside the classroom? *** Should the 'public understanding of science' stress the limits of science so as to enable people to recognize its various abuses and misues? Or should it stress the power of science to produce, say, beneficial medical and technological change? *** Should one of the principal aims of the 'public understanding of science' be to increase people's acceptance of science in their lives or to make people more self- conscious and critical of science? *** Does science itself pose certain obstacles to the 'public understanding of science'? Are these obstacles generic to the institution of science or specific to particular settings? *** In what contexts are the public expected to act upon their understanding of science? Participation in science policy decisions? More scientifically informed lifestyles? Attendance at scientific events? Recruitment into the scientific ranks? *** Are the communicative processes involved in 'public understanding of science' themselves part of how scientific knowledge is constituted? *** Is there a need for a 'public understanding of social science' akin to one or more conceptions of 'public understanding of science'? In the coming months, the above issues will be analyzed in more detail for purposes of presenting a comprehensive account of the emergent features of this field. Preliminary findings will be published toward the end of the year in the journal, Public Understanding of Science. END