政治决策过程中的科学角色:基于对三种不同研究立场的述评

The Role of Science in the Political Decision-making Process:A review on three different research positions

经过科学技术与社会(STS)近半个世纪的解构,科学真理性地位遭至极大质疑。在此背景下,关于科学在政治决策过程中的角色问题出现三种不同立场:一是柯林斯等人的选择性现代主义,它抓住关于“科学研究的第三波”争论,定义了科学为政治决策做出贡献的独特方式;二是富勒的新教科学,作为一种后真相状况下的知识形式,公众可以自主生产和使用知识来参与决策;三是布朗的代表性科学,它强调专家意见的代表性,作为民主代表的专家为政治决策提供适当建议。基于对以上三种立场的述评,本文提出一种兼顾科学施策、民主代表以及公众参与等原则的综合立场,并将其运用于疫情经验的反思之中,以期获得启发。

Science has been deconstructed by the STS for almost half a century, and its truthfulness has been greatly questioned. In this context, there are three different positions on the role of science in political decision-making. The first is selective modernism, proposed by Harry Collins and Robert Evans, which captures the debate on the "third wave of science studies" and defines the distinctive ways in which science can contribute to political decision-making. The second is Steve Fuller’s protscience,as a post-truth form of knowledge in which the public can autonomously produce and use knowledge to participate in decision-making. The third is the representative science proposed by Mark Brown, which emphasises the representativeness of expert opinion, and experts as democratic representatives, provide appropriate advice for political decision-making. Based on the review of these three positions, this article concludes by proposing a comprehensive position that takes into account the principles of scientific policy-making, democratic representation and public participation, and applies it to the reflection on the epidemic experience with a view to gaining some insights.