The Gap Between Science and Society and the Intrinsically Capitalistic Character of Science Communication

References

• Adler, Paul. 2007. “The Future of Critical Management Studies: A Paleo-Marxist Critique of Labour Process Theory.” Organization Studies 28 (9): 1313–1345. doi:10.1177/0170840607080743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvater, Elmar. 1978. “Some Problems in State Interventionism: The “Particularization” of the State in Bourgeois Society.” In State and Capital: A Marxist Debate, edited by John Holloway and Sol Picciotto, 40–42. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Arboledas-Lérida, Luis. 2020. “Capital and the Scientific Endeavour. An Appraisal of Some Marxist Contributions to the Debate on the Commodification of Science.” Critique 48 (4): 321–367. doi:10.1080/03017605.2020.1850631.
   Google Scholar
• Azeri, Siyaves. 2016. “Value and Production of Knowledge: How Science is Subsumed to Capital.” Critique 44 (1–2): 103–128. doi:10.1080/03017605.2016.1173863.
   Google Scholar
• Azeri, Siyaves. 2019. “Activity, Labour and Praxis: An Outline for a Critique of Epistemology.” Critique 47 (4): 585–602. doi:10.1080/03017605.2019.1678267.
   Google Scholar
• Azeri, Siyaves. 2020. “Evald Ilyenkov’s Marxist Critique of Epistemology and Education.” Science & Society 84 (3): 342–368. doi:10.1521/siso.2020.84.3.342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balconi, Margherita. 2002. “Tacitness, Codification of Technological Knowledge and the Organization of Industry.” Research Policy 31: 357–379. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00113-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, Martin W. 2008. “Paradigm Change for Science Communication: Commercial Science Needs a Critical Public.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts, edited by Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi, 7–25. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, Martin W., and Jane Gregory. 2007. “From Journalism to Corporate Communication in Post-War Britain.” In Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication Between News and Public Relations, edited by Martin W. Bauer and Massimo Bucchi, 33–51. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bensaude-Vicent, Bernardette. 2001. “A Genealogy of the Increasing Gap Between Science and the Public.” Public Understanding of Science 10: 99–113. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bielak, Alex T., Andrew Campbell, Shealagh Pope, Karl Schaefer, and Louise Shaxson. 2008. “From Science Communication to Knowledge Brokering: The Shift from ‘Science Push’ to ‘Policy Pull.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts, edited by Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi, 201–226. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Blanke, Bernhard, Ulrich Jürgens, and Hans Kastendiek. 1978. “On the Currenty Marxist Discussion on the Analysis of Form and Function of the Bourgeois State.” In State and Capital: A Marxist Debate, edited by John Holloway and Sol Picciotto, 108–147. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Braverman, Harry. 1998 [1974]. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Tom Mitchell. 2017. “What Can Machine-Learning Do? Workforce Implications.” Science 358 (6370): 1530–1534. doi:10.1126/science.aap8062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, Massimo. 2008. “On Deficits, Dialogues and Deviations: Theories of Public Communication of Science.” In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by Massimo Bucchi and Brian Trench, 57–76. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, Terry W., John O’Connor, and Susan M. Stocklmayer. 2003. “Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition.” Public Understanding of Science 12 (2): 183–202. doi:10.1177/09636625030122004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caligaris, Gastón, and Guido Starosta. 2014. “Which 'Rational Kernel'? Which 'Mystical Shell'? A Contribution to the Debate on the Connection Between Hegel's Logic and Marx's Capital.” In Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic: A Reexamination, edited by Fred Moseley and Tony Smith, 89–111. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Caligaris, Gastón, and Guido Starosta. 2019. “Revisiting the Marxist Skilled-Labour Debate.” Historical Materialism 27 (1): 55–91. doi:10.1163/1569206X-00001614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callon, Michael. 1994. “Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.” Science, Technology & Human Values 19 (4): 395–424. doi:10.1177/016224399401900401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carver, Rebecca. 2014. “Public Communication from Research Institutes: Is It Science Communication or Public Relations?” Journal of Science Communication 13: 3. doi:10.22323/2.13030301.
   Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, Paresh. 2019. Socialism and Commodity Production: Essay in Marx Revival. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• De Angelis, Massimo, and David Harvie. 2009. “Cognitive Capitalism and the Rat-Race: How Capital Measures Immaterial Labour in British Universities.” Historical Materialism 17: 3–30. doi:10.1163/146544609X12469428108420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Digital Science. Dimensions Database. Accessed 27 November 2021. https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, Anthony, and John C. Besley. 2016. “Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.” PLoS ONE 11 (2): e0148867. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engels, Friederich. [1925] 1987. Dialectics of Nature. Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 25. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Freyssenet, Michel. 2002. Trabajo, Automatización y Modelos Productivos [Work, Automation and Production Models]. Buenos Aires: Lumen Humanitas.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, Andy. 1977. “Responsible Autonomy versus Direct Control Over the Labor Process.” Capital & Class 1 (1): 43–57. doi:10.1177/030981687700100104.
   Google Scholar
• Gilser, Priska, and Monika Kurath. 2011. “Paradise Lost? ‘Science’ and ‘The Public’ After Asilomar.” Science, Technology & Human Values 36 (2): 213–243. doi:10.1177/0162243910366153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldner, Loren. 2001. Vanguards of Retrogression. Postmodern Fictions in an Era of Fictitious Capital. New York: Queequeg Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gorz, André. 1976. “The Tyranny of the Factory: Today and Tomorrow”. In The Division of Labor. The Labour Process and Class-Struggle in Modern Capitalism, 55–63. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, Jane, Jon Agar, Simon Lock, and Susie Harris. 2007. “Public Engagement of Science in the Private Sector. A New Form of PR?” In Journalism, Science and Society. Science Communication Between News and Public Relations, edited by Martin W. Bauer and Massimo Bucchi, 203–213. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, Henryk. 2009. “Descartes and the Social Origins of the Mechanistic Concept of the World.” In The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution. Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossman, edited by Giden Freudenthal and Peter McLaughlin, 157–230. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn, Richard. 1991. “Marxism, Metatheory and Critique.” In Post-Fordism and Social Form: A Marxist Debate on the Post-Fordist State, edited by Werner Bonefeld and John Holloway, 193–209. London: McMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn, Richard. 1992. “Against Historical Materialism: Marxism as a First-Order Discourse.” In Open Marxism. Volume III: Theory and Practice, edited by Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn and Kosmas Psychopedis, 1–45. London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvie, David. 2006. “Value Production and Struggle in the Classroom: Teachers Within, Against and Beyond Capital.” Capital & Class 30 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1177/030981680608800102.
   Google Scholar
• Herman, Eli. 2018. “Scientific Recognition.” FEMS Microbiology Letters 365 (18).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, Stephen. 1990. “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.” Social Studies of Science 20 (3): 519–539. doi:10.1177/030631290020003006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschhorn, Larry, and Joan Mokray. 1992. “Automation and Competency Requirements in Manufacturing: A Case Study.” In Technology and the Future of Work, edited by Paul Adler, 15–45. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ingvaldsen, Jonas A., and Jos Benders. 2020. “Back Through the Back Door? on Removing Supervisors to Reduce Hierarchy.” Baltic Journal of Management 15 (3): 473–491. doi:10.1108/BJM-10-2019-0359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Íñigo, Luisa. 2020. “Schooling Transformation as Concrete Forms of the Movement of the Materiality of the Production of Social Life. Automation of Work Processes and Generalization of Reading.” Educación, Lenguaje Y Sociedad 18 (18): 1–31. doi:10.19137/els-2020-181805.
   Google Scholar
• Íñigo Carrera, Juan. 2007. Conocer el Capital. Usar Críticamente El Capital Hoy [Knowing Capital. Using Capital Critically Today]. Buenos Aires: Imago Mundi.
   Google Scholar
• Íñigo Carrera, Juan. 2013. El Capital: Razón Histórica, Sujeto Revolucionario y Conciencia [Capital: Historical Necessity, Revolutionary Subject and Consciousness]. Buenos Aires: Imago Mundi.
   Google Scholar
• Jürgens, Ulirch. 1995. “Lean Production in Japan: Myth and Reality.” In The New Division of Labour: Emerging Forms of Work Organization in International Perspective, edited by Wolfgang Littek and Tony Charles, 349–362. Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Kern, Horst, and Michael Schumann. 1987. “Limits of the Division of Labour. New Production and Employment Concepts in West Germany Industry.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 8 (2): 151–170. doi:10.1177/0143831X8782002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukács, Georg. 1971. History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacNally, Daniel. 2004. “Language, Praxis and Dialectics: Reply to Collins.” Historical Materialism 12 (2): 149–167. doi:10.1163/1569206041551591.
   Google Scholar
• Marglin, Stephen A. 1974. “What Bosses Do: The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production.” The Review of Radical Political Economics 6: 60–112. doi:10.1177/048661347400600206.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, Karl. 1976 [1846]. Misery of Philosophy. Vol. 5 of Marx and Engels Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, Karl. 1986 [1939]. Economic Manuscripts of 1857 – 1858. Vol. 28 of Marx and Engels Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, Karl. 1987 [1939]. Economic Manuscripts of 1857 – 1858. Vol. 29 of Marx and Engels Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, Karl. 1989 [1905]. Economic Manuscripts of 1861-1863. Vol. 31 of the Marx and Engels Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, Karl. 1991 [1905]. Economic Manuscripts of 1861-1863. Vol. 33 of Marx and Engels Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, Karl. 1996 [1867]. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I. Vol. 35. of Marx and Engels Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Mattick, Paul. 2020. Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy. London: Pattern Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, José Luis. 2016. “To Be or Not to Be on Twitter, and its Relationship with the Tweeting and Citation of Research Papers.” Scientometrics 109: 1353–1364. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2113-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlidis, Periklis. 2015. “Social Consciousness, Education, and Transformative Activity.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 13 (2).
   Google Scholar
• Pirie, Ian. 2009. “The Political Economy of Academic Publishing.” Historical Materialism 17: 31–60. doi:10.1163/146544609X12469428108466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radder, Hans. 2010. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reuten, Geert. 2014. “An Outline of the Systematic-Dialectic Method: Scientific and Political Significance.” In Marx’s Capital And Hegel’s Logic: A Reexamination, edited by Fred Moseley and Tony Smith, 243–268. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ross-Hellauer, Tony, Jonathan P. Tennant, Viltè Banelytė, Edit Gorogh, Daniela Luzi, Peter Kraker, Lucio Pisacane, Roberta Ruggieri, Electra Sifacaki, and Michela Vignoli. 2020. “Ten Simple Rules for Innovative Dissemination of Research.” PLoS Computational Biology 16 (4): e1007704. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santerre, Lise. 2008. “From Democratization of Knowledge to Bridge Building Between Science, Technology and Society.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts, edited by Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi, 289–300. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, Alister. 2007. “Peer Review and the Relevance of Science.” Futures 39: 827–845. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, Chris, and Matt Vidal. 2021. “The Lean Labor Process: Global Diffusion, Societal Impact, Contradictory Implementation.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Lean Production, edited by Thomas Janoski and Darina Lepadatu, 150–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, Tony. 2000. Technology and Capital in the Age of Lean Production. A Marxist Critique of the ‘New Economy.’. New York: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spitz-Oene, Alexandra. 2006. “Technical Change, Job Tasks, and Rising Educational Demands: Looking Outside the Wage Structure.” Journal of Labor Economics 24 (2): 235–270. doi:10.1086/499972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starosta, Guido. 2016. Marx’s Capital, Method and Revolutionary Subjectivity. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, David. 1992. “Institutions and Incentives for Developing Work-Related Knowledge and Skill.” In Technology and the Future of Work, edited by Paul Adler, 49–186. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Sam Work, Vincent Larivière, and Stefanie Haustein. 2017. “Scholarly Use of Social Media and Altmetrics: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68 (9): 2037–2062. doi:10.1002/asi.23833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, Brianne. 2016. “In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of the Public Deficit Always Return? Exploring Key Influences.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4): 415–426. doi:10.1177/0963662516629750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szadkowski, Krystian. 2019. “An Autonomist Marxist Perspective on Productive and Unproductive Academic Labour.” TripleC – Cognition, Communication, Co-operation: Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 17 (1): 111–131.
   Google Scholar
• Telford, Luke, and Daniel Briggs. 2021. “Targets and Overwork: Neoliberalism and the Maximisation of Profitability from the Workplace.” Capital & Class 46 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1177/03098168211022208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thao, Trân Duc. 1984 [1973]. Investigations into the Origins of Language and Consciousness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe, Charles. 2020. “Science, Technology, and Life Politics Beyond the Market.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 7 (1): 53–73. doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1816363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. 2010. “Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science.” Science as Culture 19 (3): 273–301. doi:10.1080/09505430903194504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Väliverronen, Esa. 2021. “Mediatisation of Science and the Rise of Promotional Culture.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 129–146. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal, Matt. 2007. “Manufacturing Empowerment? ‘Employee Involvement’ in the Labour Process After Fordism.” Socio-Economic Review 5: 197–232. doi:10.1093/ser/mwl005.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal, Matt. 2019. “Work and Exploitation in Capitalism: The Labour Process and the Valorization Process.” In The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, edited by Matt Vidal, Tony Smith, Tomás Rotta and Paul Prew, 241–260. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Volóshinov, Vladimir N. 1986 [1973]. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, Lev S. 1987 [1934]. “Thinking and Speech.” In The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume I: Problems of General Psychology, edited by Robert W. Rieber and Aaron S. Carton, 1–285. New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Weingart, Peter, and Lars Guenther. 2016. “Science Communication and the Issue of Trust.” Journal of Science Communication 15: 5. doi:10.22323/2.15050301.
   Google Scholar