Toward a Political Philosophy of Toward a Political Philosophy of Scientific Peer Review:Scientific Peer Review:

Peer Review as Regionalized DemocracyPeer Review as Regionalized Democracy

Carl MitchamCarl Mitcham

Colorado School of MinesColorado School of Mines

Dalian University of TechnologyDalian University of Technology

2012 May 21-232012 May 21-23

11

Two Theses Two Theses 两种观点两种观点

• Peer review is a kind of democracy that promotes both research integrity and governance of science.

同行评议是一种民主，它能促进研究诚信和科学治理。

• Democracy is a lens though which it is possible to examine peer review.

民主是检验同行评议的透视镜。

22

Supporting Comparisons 1Supporting Comparisons 1

• Peer reviewers represent the scientific community.

• Elected officials represent their constituents.

• [Scientific models represent reality.]

But in all cases, questions can be asked about the representation at issue.

33

Representation in PoliticsRepresentation in Politicsand in Scienceand in Science

• A progressive theme in Bruno Latour– We Have Never Been Modern (trans. 1993)– Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences

into Democracy (trans. 2004)– (with Peter Wiebel, eds.) Making Thing Public:

Atmosphere’s of Democracy (2005)

• Developed in Mark Brown– Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions,

and Representation (2009)

44

Supporting Comparisons 2Supporting Comparisons 2

• Scientific peer review often criticized as decision making by– self-interested (or partisan) reviewers who

perpetuate a scientific status quo (or special interests)

– unimaginative reviewers not able to recognize more intelligent or creative research

– fearful reviewers trying to protect their own research programs

55

Supporting Comparisons 3Supporting Comparisons 3

• Democratic representation often criticized analogously as decision making by– self-interested (or partisan) politicians

perpetuating the status quo (or special interests)

– unimaginative politicians not able to recognize more intelligent or creative actions

– fearful politicians trying to protect their jobs

66

QualificationsQualifications

• Reflection here operates at a high level of abstraction or generalization.

• Topic is complex. Current presentation will only scratch the surface.

77

1. Peer Review as Democracy1. Peer Review as Democracy作为民主的同行评议作为民主的同行评议

• Two basic ways to organize knowledge production 组织知识生产的两种基本途径– Authoritarian / centralized

权力主义的、集中的– Democratic / distributed

民主的、分散的

88

AuthoritarianAuthoritarianKnowledge Production (AKP)Knowledge Production (AKP)

权力主义的知识生产权力主义的知识生产

• What counts as science and/or

• What kind of science counts

• Decided by a select (centralized) elite

作为科学和 / 或者科学是哪一种由精英决定（集中的）

99

AKP, continuedAKP, continued

• Traditionalist and conservative (e.g., church)

传统主义者和保守主义者（教堂）• “Great Man” theory of science

“伟人” 科学理论• Organized around professorships and

laboratories

由教职和实验室组织

1010

DemocraticDemocraticKnowledge Production (DKP)Knowledge Production (DKP)

民主的知识生产民主的知识生产• What counts as science and/or

• What kind of science counts

• Decided by a (decentralized) community of scientists

作为科学和 / 或者科学是哪一种由科学群体决定（分散的）

1111

DKP, continuedDKP, continued

• Innovative and liberal (market-like)

创新的，自由的（市场模式）• “Great Movement” theory of science

“伟大运动” 科学理论• Organized around projects and missions

(mission-oriented, applied science, engineering)

由项目和任务组织 ( 任务导向的，应用科学， 工程 )

1212

2. Democracy as a Lens2. Democracy as a Lenson Peer Reviewon Peer Review

民主在同行评议中的透视作用民主在同行评议中的透视作用• Two basic types of democracy:

– Direct / radical / participatory

直接的、激进的、参与的– Indirect / representative / republican

间接的、代表性的、大众的

1313

TensionTension

• When we say “democracy” we mostly mean “representative” or “republican.”

• Direct democracy is criticized as anarchic mob rule, republican democracy as not being direct or participatory enough.

1414

The Basis for DemocracyThe Basis for Democracy

• Historical rise of the theory of possessive individualism (Hobbes and Locke) and autonomous individualism (Rousseau and Kant)

1515

Bias for Republican Bias for Republican (Representative) Democracy(Representative) Democracy共和（代议的）民主的偏见共和（代议的）民主的偏见

• On large scales, direct democracy is simply not feasible.

• Question: Do advances in communication technology make large-scale direct democracy feasible?– Depends in part on an assessment of what

constitutes direct democracy.

1616

Theories of Political Theories of Political RepresentationRepresentation

• Types of representation (from Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill)– Representatives as delegates (“act for”

constituents)

– Representatives as trustees (“stand for” constituents)

1717

Delegate (acting for) Theory (DT)Delegate (acting for) Theory (DT)代表理论代表理论

• Constituents elect a representative as delegate, who acts only as a mouthpiece for their wishes or opinions about governance.

选民选择其中一位成员成为代表，仅仅是口头表达他们对于治理的愿望和观点。

1818

DT, continuedDT, continued

• Delegates have no independence or autonomy from their constituents.

代表们没有来自于其选民的独立性和自主性。– Not able to act on their own conscience– Act only as the voice of those not present,

whom they re-present

1919

Trustee (standing for) Theory Trustee (standing for) Theory (TT)(TT)

委托人理论委托人理论

• Constituents elect a representative as a trustee, who they authorize to govern them or on whom they rely for governance.

选民选择其中一位成员作为委托人，他们对于委托人的治理表示信任。

2020

TT, continuedTT, continued

• Trustees have independence or autonomy from their constituents.– Able to act for a good of constituents that the

constituents may not be able to perceive– Able to deliberate and act in favor of a

(transnational) common good even when this goes against the (short-term) interests of their constituents

2121

StrengthsStrengths and Weaknesses and Weaknesses

• DT solves the problem of powerless constituents having things done to them about which they have no say. (“No taxation without representation.”)

• TT solves the problem of uninformed constituents who lack knowledge about or time to become educated on complex issues.

2222

Strengths and Strengths and WeaknessesWeaknesses

• DT does not allow representatives to educate themselves to know more/better and lead/educate those they represent.

• TT does not allow those they represent to educate themselves and/or to become more intelligent through (trial and error) participation.

2323

Weaknesses EmphasizedWeaknesses Emphasized(highlighting human weaknesses)(highlighting human weaknesses)

• Delegate representation promotes mob rule, instability, and irrationality.

• Trustee representation promotes dominance by experts (technocratic rule), authoritarian control, and alienation.

2424

Strengths EmphasizedStrengths Emphasized(highlighting human potential)(highlighting human potential)

• Delegate representation allows for self-education and self-governance.

• Trustee representation allows for differentiation, specialization and division of labor, and learning from others.

2525

3. Application to Peer Review3. Application to Peer Review

• Peers represent the scientific community. But how do they represent?

• Do the peers in scientific peer review represent the scientific community as delegates or trustees?

• Not clear the question has been asked.

2626

Two QuestionsTwo Questions

1. In fact, do scientific peers act as delegates or trustees?

2. Ideally, should scientific peers act as delegates or trustees?

2727

ComparisonsComparisons

• If delegates, they must simply express the views of the scientific community.

• If trustees, they are free to exercise their own independent judgments.

2828

4. Light from Democratic Theory4. Light from Democratic Theory

• The challenge in democratic theory is to both maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses ― recognizing the “crooked timber of humanity” (Kant).

2929

James Madison (James Madison (Federalist PapersFederalist Papers))

• “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind that requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

3030

HypothesisHypothesis

• Beliefs fluctuate:

– When (unconsciously) we think of peers as delegates, we criticize peer review for being too conservative in reflecting received views.

– When we (unconsciously) think of peers as trustees, we criticize peer review for being too elitist.

3131

Ideal: Reviewing involves both Ideal: Reviewing involves both Delegates and TrusteesDelegates and Trustees

• One interpretation of the ideal system is to have delegate reviews at one level (NSF mail and panels) and trustee reviews at another (program officers)

• Compare US Congress which combines House of Representatives (delegate model) and Senate (trustee model)

3232

Concluding SpeculationConcluding Speculation

• Ultimately peer review is to be judged in relation to its influence on research integrity and governance of science.

• Peer review practices have emerged in/from an individualist social ontology (Hobbes to Kant).

3333

Alternatives?Alternatives?

• Might there be resources for alternative approaches to peer review and/or its influence on research integrity and the governance of science in Confucian or other (less individualist) social ontologies?

3434

Putting Things in PerspectivePutting Things in Perspective

Re peer review, it may be useful to recall a (perhaps apocryphal) 1972 exchange between President Richard Nixon and Premier Zhou Enlai.

―Nixon to Zhou: “What do you think has been the impact of the French

Revolution?”

―Zhou (after reflection) to Nixon: “It is too early to say.”

3535