lemonde.fr
CNRS Funding Proposal Sparks Debate on Human Sciences' Value
French chemist Bernard Meunier suggested removing human sciences from the CNRS to cut costs and improve researcher career incentives, reflecting biases against human sciences' perceived lack of universal validity and technological applications, despite the social conditioning within all scientific fields.
- What are the immediate consequences of the proposed exclusion of human sciences from the CNRS, and how does it reflect broader biases within the scientific community?
- Bernard Meunier, a chemist, proposed excluding human sciences from the CNRS to reduce payroll and enhance attractiveness, freeing budget to better reward top researchers. This reflects a common prejudice against human sciences as lacking the universality and technological applications of "hard" sciences.
- How do the social dynamics within "hard" science laboratories, as revealed by Latour and Woolgar, challenge the perceived superiority of these sciences over human sciences?
- Meunier's proposal highlights the perceived disparity between "hard" and human sciences, stemming from a belief that only exact sciences produce universally valid results through rigorous experimentation. However, this ignores the social processes within "hard" sciences, as shown by Latour and Woolgar's work on the social construction of scientific facts.
- What are the long-term implications of perpetuating the myth of objective science, and how might this impact public trust in scientific findings on crucial issues like health, environment, and climate?
- The controversies surrounding scientific validity in media highlight the entanglement of scientific knowledge with political and economic power structures. Meunier's proposal, while seemingly focused on efficiency, underscores a deeper issue: the myth of objective, value-free science.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate around Meunier's proposal to exclude the humanities from CNRS, presenting his perspective prominently in the introduction. While counterarguments are presented later, the initial framing predisposes the reader to view the humanities negatively. The use of quotes from Poincaré further reinforces a pre-conceived notion of the inferiority of humanities research.
Language Bias
The text uses loaded language to describe the humanities, employing terms like "superfluous," "buting on the complexity of the human," and "prisonniers des ambiguïtés du langage ordinaire." These phrases carry negative connotations and suggest inherent limitations of humanities research. More neutral language could have been used to describe the challenges faced by these fields.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the perspective of those who undervalue the humanities, neglecting counterarguments or perspectives that highlight the value and contributions of social sciences. The potential limitations and biases inherent in the 'hard sciences' are discussed, but the positive contributions and methodologies of the humanities are not given equal weight. The omission of diverse viewpoints on the value of humanities research leads to an incomplete picture.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a false dichotomy between 'hard' sciences and humanities, implying an inherent superiority of the former based on perceived objectivity and technological applications. This ignores the complexities and varied methodologies within both fields, as well as the significant societal impact of humanities research.
Sustainable Development Goals
The proposed exclusion of human sciences from the CNRS, driven by a perceived lack of economic value compared to hard sciences, exacerbates existing inequalities within the scientific community. This reinforces the marginalization of researchers in the humanities and social sciences, hindering their career progression and perpetuating a biased funding system.