THE DRIVE TO INNOVATION:

THE PRIVILEGING OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN CANADA

by

Laura Cauchi

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Laura Cauchi 2012

ii

THE DRIVE TO INNOVATION:

THE PRIVILEGING OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN CANADA

Doctor of Philosophy 2012

Laura Cauchi

Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies

University of Toronto

Abstract

This dissertation project explored the privileging of knowledge production in science and

technology as a Canadian national economic, political and social strategy. The project

incorporated the relationship between nation-state knowledge production and how that

knowledge is then systematically evaluated, prioritized and validated by systems of health

technology assessment (HTA). The entry point into the analysis and this dissertation project was

the Scientific Research and Experimental Design (SR&ED) federal tax incentive program as the

cornerstone of science and technology knowledge production in Canada. The method of inquiry

and analysis examined the submission documents submitted by key stakeholders across the

country, representing public, private and academic standpoints, during the public consultation

process conducted from 2007 to 2008 and how each of these standpoints is hooked into the

public policy interests and institutional structures that produce knowledge in science and

technology. Key public meetings, including the public information sessions facilitated by the

Canada Revenue Agency and private industry conferences, provided context and guidance

regarding the current pervasive public and policy interests that direct and drive the policy

debates. Finally, the ―Innovation Canada: A Call to Action Review of Federal Support to

Research and Development: Expert Panel Report,‖ commonly referred to as ―The Jenkins

Report‖ (Jenkins et al., 2011), was critically evaluated as the expected predictor of future public

iii

policy changes associated with the SR&ED program and the future implications for the

production of knowledge in science and technology. The method of inquiry and analytical lens

was a materialist approach that drew on the inspiring frameworks of such scholars as Dorothy

Smith, Michel Foucault, Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Melinda Cooper, and, Gilles Deleuze.

Ultimately, I strove to illuminate the normalizing force and power of knowledge production in

science and technology, and the disciplines and structures that encompass it and are hooked into

it where the privileging of such knowledge becomes hegemonic within and by the regimes of

knowledge production that created them.

iv

Acknowledgements

Thank you...friends and family for your ongoing words of encouragement, support and patience.

Thank you...Professor Jamie Magnusson for always challenging me to look at the world critically

and compassionately.

Thank you...Amgen Canada Inc., my employer for sponsoring me with the unrestricted grant for

the pursuit of this degree and for encouraging my personal, professional and academic

development.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... x

Chapter 1: Introduction, Background and Reflection ..................................................................... 1

Introduction and Background: SR&ED and HTA ...................................................................... 1

The Development of My Standpoint: Identifying the/My Disjuncture ...................................... 1

An Overview of the Dissertation Project Structure .................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review ............................................................ 9

A Brief Literature Review: The Presumed Primacy of the Scientific

Research Method ........................................................................................................................ 9

Critique of Evidence Based Medicine Specifically as a Subset of the

Scientific Method ...................................................................................................................... 12

Validity ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Bias and Objectivity .................................................................................................................. 16

EBM + RCT = Objectivity? ...................................................................................................... 16

Evaluation and Standardization of Knowledge Production ...................................................... 17

A Brief Literature Review: The Role of Public Scientific Literacy in

Public Policy Development....................................................................................................... 21

A Brief Literature Review: The Role of Bioeconomics, Biopolitics

and Biocapital ........................................................................................................................... 26

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 29

Chapter 3: Research Question and Method of Inquiry ................................................................. 32

Research Focus ......................................................................................................................... 32

What Is the SR&ED Program? ................................................................................................. 32

A Review of Online Resources: SR&ED Program................................................................... 33

The Program Itself: SR&ED in Brief........................................................................................ 34

The SR&ED Policy and the 2007 Consultation Process:

The Primary Data Set ................................................................................................................ 36

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programs: An Overview ............................................ 38

The History of HTA Programs in Canada ................................................................................ 40

Generalized Structure of the Assessment of Evidence and the

HTA Review Process ................................................................................................................ 41

Method of Inquiry and Analysis ............................................................................................... 42

Canada Revenue Agency Public Information Sessions:

Participant Observation ............................................................................................................. 43

vi

The SR&ED Public Consultation Documents: A Textual Analysis ......................................... 43

Public Consultation Process and Documents October 2007: The Process ............................... 44

The Role of HTA and SR&ED: The Canadian Landscape ....................................................... 49

Clinical Research Conference: Participant Observation ........................................................... 57

Final Analysis: The Power of the Materialist Approach .......................................................... 60

Chapter 4: Data Narratives ............................................................................................................ 61

Summary of Field Notes From Public Meeting ........................................................................ 61

Preamble to the Data Review of Appendix A: The Public

Consultation Documents ........................................................................................................... 71

Chapter 5: Analyses and Discussions ........................................................................................... 74

Analysis and Discussion: Canada Revenue Agency Public Information

Meeting and Public Consultation Documents........................................................................... 74

Analysis and Discussion: The R&D Global and National Landscape in

Science and Technology as a Consequence of the Public Consultation Process ...................... 78

Analysis and Discussion: Health Technology Assessment and the Role

of Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 88

Health Technology Assessment: Relationship to SR&ED and Philosophical

Consequences of Privileged Knowledge .................................................................................. 93

Analysis and Discussion of Public Conference: Clinical Research in

Canada Conference ................................................................................................................... 96

The History of the Corporate Ideal and Human Capital: Precursor to

the Innovation Discourse .......................................................................................................... 99

A Review of the Economics: Human Capital and Innovation ................................................ 101

Microeconomic Decision-Making Power VS Macroeconomic Needs ................................... 103

Application and Utilization of Human Capital: For Work and/or Citzenship? ...................... 104

Calculating the Human Capital Requirements and Knowledge Markets ............................... 105

The Duality Inherent in Human Capital: Disembodied Product and Consumer .................... 108

Chapter 6: The Current Situation and the Immediate Future ...................................................... 110

The Jenkins Report Recommendations ................................................................................... 112

The Current, Evolving Situation ............................................................................................. 122

Future Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 124

Concluding Thoughts .............................................................................................................. 125

References ................................................................................................................................... 128

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 Standardized Data Extraction Form ................................................................................. 44

Table 2 International Comparison of R&D Tax Incentives .......................................................... 81

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Basic schema: Knowledge production in science and technology

in Canada. ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 2. Registration information requested prior to attendance at SR&ED

public information seminar (Canada Revenue Agency, 2011a). .................................................. 62

Figure 3. Algorithmic representation of SR&ED eligible claims. ............................................... 70

Figure 4. Schematic of the HTA decision-making process. ......................................................... 90

Figure 5. Proposed Model on Business Innovation advocated by The Jenkins

Report (Jenkins et al., 2011). ...................................................................................................... 117

Figure 6. The innovation ‗life force‘ advocated by The Jenkins Report

(Jenkins et al., 2011). .................................................................................................................. 120

ix

List of Appendices

Appendix A SR&ED Public Consultation Documents ............................................................... 138

Appendix B Websites Consulted for Health Technology Assessment

Information and References ........................................................................................................ 172

Appendix C Observation Field Notes From a 2011 Conference in

Montreal, Quebec ........................................................................................................................ 173

Appendix D PowerPoint Slide Presentation From a Public Information

SR&ED Meeting ......................................................................................................................... 180

x

Dedication

This work and everything in my life is dedicated to my husband, Jean-Paul, and our children,

Alexander and Michaela. You indulged every request to ―let mummy do her homework.‖ Thank

you for your patience and your love. Your support and sacrifice was the greatest of all and for

that I will be forever grateful.

All my love is yours.

1

Chapter 1:

Introduction, Background and Reflection

Introduction and Background: SR&ED and HTA

This dissertation project examined how science and technology knowledge production is

privileged in Canada through very specific national economic, political and social programs. The

focus of the research is the Scientific Research and Experimental Design (SR&ED) program. My

entry point into the research is through my own experience as a ―knowledge production worker‖

in the ―new economy.‖ The legislation and the policy statements that govern this tax credit

program will be shown to direct and guide how research and development in science and

technology is completed and the parameters that privilege a certain type of knowledge; the

innovation discourse. Overlaid and hooked into this is the analysis conducted by Health

Technology Assessment (HTA) programs that specifically evaluate the medical therapeutic

knowledge produced in Canada as a subset of knowledge produced in science and technology.

These programs then allow certain types of knowledge to receive a privileged and powerful

status in Canada. The economic, political and social implications of that privileged knowledge

status will be critiqued as the basis of this analysis. The research method of inquiry will be

outlined in Chapter 3.

The concept for my dissertation project evolved over several years of graduate studies

and my professional career as a knowledge production worker in the biotechnology sector. In my

academic career, I have been focused on a critique of knowledge production that challenges the

principles of democratizing knowledge (or rather, lack thereof) and the power structures and

relations of ruling that support, maintain and privilege certain types of institutions and the

resulting knowledge production.

The Development of My Standpoint: Identifying the/My Disjuncture

As I write the introductory chapter to this dissertation project, I find myself

contemplating the organic and material processes that have led me to this place. In order to more

fully and accurately capture the intent, purpose and spirit of my dissertation project, I believe it is

critical to the process to document my personal motivation and standpoint for this project. It is

2

for this reason that I include the following reflective piece of personal writing. It is through this

reflection that the social implications of the privileging of a positivistic ideology of knowledge

production will be illuminated. Only then will the academic purpose and merit be apparent.

My history in brief is presented as a traditional trajectory in education and career. I

completed a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Biology from the University of Western Ontario. I

struggled in university after finishing first in my high school graduating class. In retrospect and

upon reflection, I had given little thought to what I would study other than I did well in the

sciences. So, of course, it made perfect sense to continue in university. At the end of the BSc, I

was not accepted into the honours program, but I was not yet ready to leave university. I returned

for 2 more years to complete the honours program in Anthropology. For the first time since I had

entered university, the ‗A‘s were back. I thrived in the program and enjoyed writing essays and

not lab reports. I wanted to talk about the possibilities and diversities of life and culture and not

just about the perceived absolutes of science. I did not yet know the language and discourse of a

critique of positivism, but that was the impetus for the path I was now inching along.

I graduated again and went off to work to pay for my student loans. Life continued and I

built a career, a marriage and a family. Ten years passes and the questions and uncertainties that

had started to unfold at the end of my undergraduate career began to surface again. This is what

led me to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto (OISE/UT).

I had built a successful career in the biotechnology industry managing the implementation and

project management of clinical trials, but I was unconvinced that there was one acceptable way

to produce, evaluate and transmit knowledge in science and technology. My professional life was

dominated by a discourse that prioritized knowledge production by standards of evidence-based

medicine, gold standards and quantitative methods that dismissed and negated any and all other

methods as irrelevant and without credibility. This privileging of knowledge production by a few

select methods is the disjuncture that began to surface for me.

What I have been experiencing passively since leaving undergraduate studies and more

acutely since beginning graduate studies at OISE/UT is an ongoing transformation away from

positivism; situated for me within the context of understanding what truth is and whether an

absolute truth in science is even possible. The mantra of science is predicated on the unbiased

search for truth. Dei (2008, p. 11) proposes that, ―Sometimes the marker of difference is in what

3

is deemed ‗science‘ and ‗not science‘ or what is ‗valid‘ knowledge and what is ‗not valid‘ and

the criterion for marking these determinants.‖ I had spent the better part of my academic and

professional life positioning science and technology knowledge within a positivist, transmission

orientation where knowledge is right or wrong (data as a binary) and facts are presented in a

logical and indisputable format from teacher to learner. I was now faced with challenging the

notion that absolutes in knowledge were even possible and that learning could happen in more

optimal ways for both teacher and learner in a collaborative way that honours multi-centric ways

of learning and knowing and producing knowledge. I had begun to define a method and a

process by which I could move beyond what Semali and Kincheloe (2000) describe as ―This

modernist view of knowledge, this one truth epistemology‖ (p. 27).

Additionally, as part of this process, I must consider what Dei (2000, p. 8) proposes that

―Knowledge, experience and practice must lead to theory.‖ This challenges my understanding of

the role of theory in knowledge production where theory is the originating point. By design, the

scientific method is rooted in theory as the basis for leading to experience which results in

knowledge and consequently alters practice and behaviour. At its inception, the scientific method

is reductionist and abstracted from the realities of the lives of individual people and populations.

―Once the binary opposition is embraced, we have to choose one and dismiss the other – not only

indigeneity and colonialism but also local knowledge or academic knowledge.‖ (Kincheloe &

Steinberg, 2008, p. 143). As Harding (1997) discussed, science sets a standard and the hegemony

of the Eurocentric discourses ―blocks easy exit‖ from their conceptual framework. All these

scholars have challenged my understanding of the scientific method, the hallmark of positivism,

as the preeminent methodology. However, similar to the conclusion in Harding (1997), the goal

is not to revolt against modernity but to update and modernize cultural legacies. While on the

surface this may seem to be an argument for the appropriation of alternative knowledges, rather,

I see this as an opportunity to explore the intersection points. I would like to embrace the idea

that this process can be ―knowledge creative and not knowledge destructive‖ (Piatelli &

Lechenby, 2009).

Reid‘s (2001) discussion and analysis of Joseph Schwab‘s theory of the ―learning

environment‖ highlighted for me the direct impact of the learning that is inherent, specific and

automatic within a community and the inability to separate it from the community. I currently

4

work and study in two very dichotomous communities that provide diametrically opposed

messages about how knowledge is produced and how one evaluates the importance, relevance

and value of that knowledge. The positivistic world of biotechnology research and development

is predicated on a research for-profit model where the importance of knowledge is judged by the

breadth of its‘ application, utility and financial profitability. A transformative, democratic

method of inquiry is predicated on a search for all types of knowledge in an inclusionary way

where the process and end result are always open to critique. A significant portion of my

academic growth is the understanding that the ‗community‘ in which I associate will channel the

direction of my journey to understanding. The collective notion of the community and the role of

the individual are mutually interdependent. The individual is limited in the expression of their

individuality by the ‗learning‘ that occurs within the community in which they function. That is

to say, the individual is the product of the collective community.

This may have been the key turning point for me in the deconstruction of my history. I

did not like the „product‟ that I was becoming in my professional life. In the words of Dorothy

Smith (2005, 2006), I was unaware of the ―relations of ruling‖ that were coordinating not only

my work processes but the way in which I was now thinking about how knowledge is produced. I

was losing the ability to critically and independently appraise my role in this learning community

and in the process of knowledge production. While there is a co-dependence between the

individual and the community, there is an inherent ‗dynamic‘ nature of a community where

knowledge and learning must be equally adaptable to the needs of the individual and the

community.

Challenging and critiquing my science education and professional life has been and

continues to be a difficult process. It has required an understanding of the role of racism,

colonialism, feminism and the industrial-military-biomedical complex. This self-reflection has

challenged me to understand that science does not function in a vacuum that is devoid of external

influences and effects. A key reading for me is Vandana Shiva‘s (1997) Biopiracy: The Plunder

of Nature and Knowledge. Her ability to position individuals as stewards of nature and the

material effects of science and technology on individuals and societies is critical in my

understanding that my role within a community is subject to my complicity. While my ―learning

community‖ may say and do one thing, I am still empowered as an individual to challenge,

5

disagree, diverge and subvert. In actuality, I have a moral obligation to do so. I believe this is

critical to my evolving ‗transformation‘ as a biological and social scientist; two roles that are not

mutually exclusive, contrary to popular belief.

―A transformative scientist understands that any science is a social construction,

produced in a particular culture in a specific historical era.‖ (Semali & Kincheloe, 2000, p. 45). I

have contemplated this reading deeply in terms of my own understanding, the industrial

community in which I work daily and the academy in which I critically evaluate all these

processes.

And so I am here now in this place and time. Is my history and standpoint relative?

Clearly yes is the answer. Feminist standpoint theory outlines why that is so. Harding (1997)

describes feminist standpoint theory as a postpositivistic, anti-internalist, socially located

epistemology that allows for the identifications of ―conceptual practices of power‖ which have

been examined by Dorothy Smith (2005, 2006). At a lecture in the spring of 2002 at Boston

College, Harding suggested that feminist standpoint epistemology questions and ultimately

challenges the proposition that the social world is a fixed reality that is external to individuals‘

consciousness. Standpoint theory is not relativism, rather if you start research from the

standpoint of the subjugated, this will lead not to an objective truth, but rather to a less false, less

partial, less distorted view. She believes that it should be the goal as researchers, not to justify

truth claims but to enable different forms of knowledge to emerge that challenge power. She also

challenges the value of objectivity as value neutral and argues that the relationship between

researcher and participant must be engaged and not detached (Piatelli & Lechenby, 2009).

It is from this standpoint and theoretical framework that I begin this dissertation project.

My core interests and my standpoint are based on a critical assessment of the method and manner

by which knowledge is produced in science and technology generally, and health care,

specifically, between academia/public sector and industry/private sector. To that relationship, I

would also add a third corner to create a triad which includes the government/nation-state/public

sector institutions as a separate entity. My studies have evolved organically to consider the

themes of academic capitalism, human capital theories, biotechnology as a nation-state

bioeconomic and biocapital strategy, and, hierarchical critiques of evidence-based medicine as

the standards of knowledge generation. On my journey to becoming and being a transformative

6

scientist, my critique must consider that knowledge is more than just evidence of fact. It is also a

reflection of the individuals and their societies who actively produce that knowledge and the

standpoint from which that production occurs and continues to develop.

Consider Dewey‘s (1938) Experience and Education and his discussion of experiences as

a moving force of magnitude and direction. My journey to doctoral work was not a typical

trajectory but there were seminal experiences that propelled my journey in specific ways and

directions. I do not regret any experiences and accept that all knowledge, however produced,

delivered and understood by me is framed by my ability to be in this place at this time and my

ability to evolve further.

How do I move beyond the privileged positivism of industry (and my own personal

history) and develop a framework for an effective and democratic intersection of universal

knowledge with multi-centric ways of knowing, understanding and teaching? It is through this

lens that I wish for the reader to position her/him/self to understand the intention of this

dissertation project and the critique which I intend to present.

An Overview of the Dissertation Project Structure

The dissertation project is structured with six chapters with several sub-sections

contained within each chapter.

Chapter 1 as the introductory chapter presents the thesis of the dissertation projection and

an extensive reflective piece of writing. It is my intention that the materially reflective section of

this chapter is a necessary and important component that will accurately present my standpoint

development and the disjuncture from which the inspiring impetus for this dissertation project

originates.

Chapter 2 will explicate the theoretical frameworks and views from the literature that

have influenced this dissertation project. The discourses of biocapital, a critique of evidence-

based medicine and the role that public scientific literacy plays in the complicities of these

discourses will be explored and critiqued. It is my intention to show that the innovation discourse

that surrounds knowledge production in science and technology is dramatically affected by these

discourses and influences the increasing positivistic nature inherent within the innovation

7

discourse. As a result, public policy programs such as the SR&ED and HTA programs are

structured in such a way so as to privilege certain types of knowledge production and the

methodologies that creates it. It is this hegemonic knowledge production methodology that will

be analyzed and critiqued in greater detail in chapter 5.

Chapter 3 will explicate in greater detail the specifics of the SR&ED and HTA programs.

It will outline the method of inquiry that forms the basis of the data collection of this dissertation

project and the methodological framework. I will introduce and explicated my method of

inquiry: a materialist approach.

Chapter 4 will be a detailed narrative of the data that was collected. Appendices A, B, C,

and D will include detailed summaries of the data itself that was summarized from my

participant observation field notes and the textual analyses.

Summary of data collected:

A. Appendix A will textually analyse and summarize the 48 public consultation

submission documents from the SR&ED public consultation conducted in 2007 to

2008.

B. Appendix B will list the key health technology assessment references and websites

that were accessed for the HTA discussion that is included in Chapter 3.

C. Appendix C will summarize the conference notes from the Clinical Research in

Canada conference that occurred in Montreal, Quebec March 28 and 29, 2011.

D. Appendix D will include the complete set of slides that were provided as a handout

during the public information SR&ED meeting of the Canada Revenue Agency that I

attended on September 20, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario.

Chapter 5 will discuss the key findings from the data collections and the relationship to

the innovation discourse as a national political, economic and social strategy of knowledge

production in science and technology; including an analysis that incorporates human capital

theory as part of the innovation discourse.

The final chapter 6 will include a critique of The Jenkins Report (Jenkins et al., 2011) as

a contemporary analytical tool that is expected to be used by the current Canadian government to

8

refine the SR&ED program and further privilege the production of science and technology

knowledge production in Canada; all through the guise of the importance and criticality of the

―innovation discourse‖ to national economic strategies. The Jenkins Report was publically

released in October 2011 and represents a perspective that is likely to influence public policy

decisions surrounding the innovation discourse in Canada in the coming years.

9

Chapter 2:

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

A Brief Literature Review: The Presumed Primacy of the Scientific Research Method

The primacy of the scientific research method dominates in science and technology. The

underlying message is that certain research methods and knowledge production is valued and

rewarded over other types. Ninnes (2002) extends this discussion further in his review of space

science. The process of applying a value and priority to one type of research necessitates that

there is a hierarchy. By its‘ very nature, that hierarchy of knowledge and knowledge production

cannot be democratic. It will have a relative value, it will be prioritized, it will be disseminated

and it will be normalized, and then, it will become powerful. As L. Smith proposes:

The globalization of knowledge and Western culture constantly reaffirms the

West‘s view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what

counts as knowledge and the source of ‗civilized‘ knowledge. This form of global

knowledge is generally referred to as ‗universal‘ knowledge available to all and

not really ‗owned‘ by anyone, that is, until non-Western scholars make claims to

it. (L. Smith, 1999, p. 63)

Foucault (1975) would propose that

The Normal is established as a principle of coercion in teaching with the

introduction of a standardized education…it is established in the standardization

of industrial processes and products…Like surveillance and with it, normalization

becomes one of the great instruments of power at the end of the classical age.

(p. 184)

The Western, global North ability to universalize, normalize and grant power to knowledge

production and evaluation is a hegemonic system that requires vigilant challenge.

Semali and Kincheloe (2000) expand on the power of normalizing knowledge by

suggesting that, ―A key to comprehending the power of Western science involves its ability to

depict its findings as universal knowledge‖ (p. 29). Further on in their article they write that

―Knowledge in this context becomes centralized and the power to produce knowledge is

concentrated in the hands of a limited power bloc. In this process one begins to understand that

science is the most powerful cultural production of Western society‖ (p. 31). There is a circular

10

logic that maintains the power relationship in knowledge production where universal knowledge

becomes a standard, the standard becomes powerful by its ability to maintain the hierarchy of

knowledge and continue to produce universal knowledge. By allowing for the diversity of multi-

centric ways of knowing and producing knowledge, there is a destabilizing force on the

hegemonic structures that produce and propagate universal knowledge. Dei (2000) proposes that

―One may start to destabilize what constitutes ‗valid‘ academic knowledge by challenging the

political economy of knowledge production that accords different cost and privileges to

knowledge systems‖ (p. 129).

There is the perception of democratic knowledge in this process because the methodology

of the scientific method is presumed to be validated by the hallmarks of quantifiable objectivity

and utility and universality. However, the paradox of this methodology is that the results are

presumed (erroneously in many cases) able to be extrapolated to the wider populations. It is

important to realize and acknowledge that the marginalized are the many and not the few when

one considers a global perspective and not a global north, western dominated world-view. As

McTaggart (1991) proposes, ―there is no guarantee that the effects will be democratic,

constructive, or equitable‖ (p. 9). As a result, the lack of democratic knowledge is also

accompanied by a lack of universality.

The lack of democratic knowledge and universality in the process of knowledge

production and standardization is a direct result of the power relationships that exist in the

academic-industry research relationships that sponsor, produce and exploit knowledge

production. There are economic, social and political implications for supporting and maintaining

the gold standard as a means to reinforce the power relationships at the heart of bio-medical

research. Evidence-based medicine as a methodology is a primary means to achieve this end.

Consider the perspective of Gough (1998):

If the knowledge produced by Western scientists is only ―consumed‖ in cultural

sites dominated by Western science, then their claim to its universality might be a

relatively harmless conceit. But we are increasingly seeing attempts to generate

global knowledge in areas such as health (necessitated, in part, by the global

traffic in drugs and disease) and environment (e.g., global climate change) that

draw attention to the cultural biases and limits of Western science. (p. 511)

11

Democratizing the processes of research and knowledge production will consider more

than just the benefits of outcomes. Rather, by democratizing knowledge production there are

challenges and considerations given to the very nature of research and the value to the

communities as a whole and not just privileged individuals. It is the method by which

marginalized citizens can be empowered to gain access to knowledge in order to stimulate social

change and benefit for all (Brown, Bammer, Batliwala, & Kunreuther, 2003; Flicker, Travers,

Guta, McDonald, & Meagher, 2007). However, the concept and ideology of the gold standard

does not consider these elements. Rather, it is shrouded in the veil of detached objectivity and is

supported by economic, political and social ideology that demands quantifiable and privileged

knowledge, which is above and beyond reproach (Cauchi, 2007, pp. 1-2).

Consider now the notion of binaries and dichotomies in positivism. Rather than allow a

dichotomy to persist, Harding (1997) argues ―that ‗cultural differences‘ create possibilities …to

the expansion of knowledge about the world‖ (p. 57). Instead of normalizing one methodology,

the process of all knowledge production should be normalized which provides the opportunity

for the diversity of knowledge production and could ultimately, lead to a more inclusive and

democratic paradigm. However, there is a socially constructed challenge to the viability of this

proposal.

One of the universals of culture, it seems, is that each group regards its own

knowledge system as the ―truth.‖ For the Western powers, this inherent

ethnocentrism assumes warrant and hegemony through the seductive power of the

technology based on their scientific ―superiority.‖ (Purcell, 1998, p. 267)

The universality of science and universal knowledge is more than just the critical

evaluation of data. It is rooted in the source of the data.

An analysis of the source of the data, cultural and social differences, equity, race and

gender issues, are all factors of the history and authority of scientific research and the privileged

position that it holds within society and the academy. It is a privilege that extends to the products

of research and the technologies that become elevated to the universal knowledge status.

Pestre (2003) proposes that a process of nationalization has influenced science over the

last 150 years to the extent that science has become central to national security, economic

development and national identity. The management of the advancement of scientific research is

12

considered part of the normal duties of the state and regulatory authorities in association with

industrial and academic partners. There has been a commodification of the products of scientific

research; ―the emergence of a new regime of knowledge production linked to a new regime of

social regulations‖ (Pestre, 2003, p. 245).

There is a normalizing force and power to knowledge production and the discipline that

surrounds it. Authority is granted and maintained by all the methods of knowledge production,

primarily rooted in the scientific method. The colonizing structures of knowledge production

remain entrenched and are perpetuated by the regimes of knowledge production that created

them.

By problematizing the notion of who, what, where, how and why of knowledge

production, this allows for other voices and possibilities to enter the discussion. Once knowledge

is normalized, it becomes very powerful and potentially fixed. It is through the analytical frames

of materialism and the power discourse that I will illuminate this problematic.

There is valuable knowledge to be gained by inclusion rather than exclusion, challenge

rather than status quo. I challenge the notion of the possibility of (absolute) truths and whether

that possibility is a failure of knowledge production at the research level or knowledge

dissemination at the classroom/community level or both.

Critique of Evidence Based Medicine Specifically as a Subset of the Scientific Method

Before examining the relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and

knowledge production, it may be beneficial to first discuss what it means to conduct ‗good‘

research in science and industry. Brickhouse (2005) examined this question and proposed that

there are standards that must be met in order to ensure that research in science is classified as

‗good‘ and for critical evaluation of the research to be possible. The three criteria proposed

include:

1. the evaluation of learning has important educational aims for science education,

2. there is careful and honest description about who is or is not benefiting in the science

education studies and finally,

3. there is a potential for influencing policy and practice in science education.

13

Clearly, these criteria attempt to establish a methodology by which the research is useful,

valid and beneficial. But is this necessarily a guarantee of ‗good‘ research?

The goals and objectives of research are critical to understanding the value and

applicability of science to education and society. If we accept the preface proposed by

Brickhouse (2005) that standard research requires ―significant learning outcomes‖ and that

science should be ―framed and used to benefit,‖ then there is an expected utility to the research in

order to guarantee its evaluation as ‗good.‘ On the surface it appears that Brickhouse (2005) is

arguing for evidence-based medicine as the standard methodology, however, she goes on to

propose that,

There are good reasons to believe that methodological diversity is an asset to

educational research rather than a liability; ―Methodological diversity allows us to

address a far greater range of questions than would be the case if we were to

develop a methodological orthodoxy. (p. 6)

While this may appear to be a generalized statement with application across many disciplines, I

specifically place this quote here to illustrate that EBM is a firmly rooted methodological

orthodoxy.

Evidence-based medicine has evolved as the standard and privileged methodology in

medical science research. The hallmark of evidence-based medicine is the placebo, controlled,

randomized clinical trial (RCT) as the means of the research and the gold standard as the result

of the research, which function together to support EBM as a universally accepted standard. The

gold standard labeling arises from the perceived winner or superior result in the EBM research.

Feinstein and Horwitz (1997) propose a definition for EBM where it is the ―proposed practice of

‗evidence-based medicine‘, which calls for careful clinical judgment in evaluating the ‗best

available evidence‘ from systematic research‖ (p. 529). The key components of this definition

include a review of the phrase ―best available evidence.‖ The data or evidence will typically arise

from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses (hence EBM methodology). The evaluation of

―best available‖ will have important implications for the individual patient. Results will be based

on the average patient and average results. The best available evidence (i.e., the most legally

defendable in courts of law for the cynics among us) for all may not be the best available for the

individual.

14

This leads to the question about what is the real authority of EBM and its methodology.

EBM is more than just randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses. It is also meant to

encompass and include clinically relevant research from basic science, studies of diagnostic tests,

prognostic markers, and, efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative and preventive

regimens (Feinstein & Horwitz, 1997). Theoretically, EBM was meant to have a more diverse

approach to research but has evolved into the highly quantitative method that is the randomized

clinical trial.

The randomized clinical trial as the hallmark of EBM was introduced in the late 1940s

for a tuberculosis-streptomycin study and became the standard by which the effectiveness of

therapeutic agents were assessed (Feinstein, 1984). However, it has been proposed that the

informal experiments conducted by James Lind in 1747 examining a treatment for scurvy were

the first controlled clinical trials (Sacks, Chalmers, & Smith, 1982). The ‗golden age‘ of EBM

began in the 1980s and continues to form the basis and authority of science research

methodologies (Stirrat, 2004).

A critique of the authority of the randomized clinical trial begins with an analysis of three

key components: validity, bias and objectivity.

Validity

McKee et al. (1999) propose that the essential validity question is the extent to which

results and evaluations can be externalized; that is to say, the extent to which the data and results

are generalizable to all potential patients. Validity has two facets: internal and external validity.

Internal validity refers to the certainty that the study findings are true for the study population

and setting under examination. External validity refers to the generalizability of the study

findings to other populations and settings. Clearly, external validity is reduced, if not impossible,

when there is poor internal validity (Wells, 1999).

One of the key challenges with increasing the validity of randomized clinical trials is that

the study populations tend to exclude future, real-world patients that do not fit with the

established study criteria. These are typically patients that have complicating co-morbidities that

exclude them from the inclusion criteria. The ultimate conclusion is that a gold standard

15

treatment that results from this classic paradigm may have decreased safety and efficacy for all

potential patients because of decreased external validity.

Advocates of alternative and complementary medicine clearly assert that the EBM

methodology and classic scientific method is either not applicable or not sufficient to fully

evaluate some treatment regimens. These advocates propose that alternative research

methodologies are better suited to alternative and complementary medicine. However, the

challenge is still to ensure the validity of this data by whichever methodology. As Angell and

Kassirer (1998) write, ―assertions, speculation and testimonials do not substitute for evidence‖

(p. 841).

Faraone and Tsuang (1994) examine this question from the perspective of how treatment

decisions are arrived at when a variety of research methodologies do not yield a gold standard

treatment. They specifically examined the situation in psychiatry where a cross-disciplinary

approach is used when supplementary data about outcomes is considered along with family and

medical history and laboratory studies. Clearly the model is a combination of evidence from

classic EBM methodology where the external validity of data is increased by considering

individual factors. However, this cross-disciplinary approach does not fit with the industrial

model of ‗one pill fits all gold standard medicine.‘ True validity would be the result of a cross-

matrix approach where a variety of research designs are considered to confirm the data and

support any claims. A same or similar conclusion that is the product of various research

methodologies from classic EBM with the randomized clinical trial to qualitative research

methods, would lead to high external validity of the proposed standard.

The hierarchy of research designs and methodologies is directly linked to the level of

authority and, ultimately, privilege that is bestowed on evidence. Concato, Shah, and Horwitz

(2000) propose that there is a clear hierarchy in science research designs with the randomized

clinical trial (preferably double-blind, placebo controlled) at the top and qualitative observational

studies at the bottom. It is presumed that non-randomized clinical trials have less validity and

hence, decreased basis for generalizability.

Grimes and Schulz (2002) are clear in their perspective that the ―randomized controlled

trials are the gold standard in clinical research‖ (p. 57). They feel that the randomized clinical

16

trial is essential to eliminating bias. Their primary argument is based on the belief that

randomization is the only known way to avoid selection and confounding biases in clinical

research and hence, reduces the likelihood of bias in determining outcomes. Abel and Koch

(1999) are critics of the concept of randomization as a means to eliminate bias in unconventional

therapies and surgery. They propose that the primary supporters of randomization as a

methodology are found among internal medicine, biostatistics and regulatory agencies.

Bias and Objectivity

Consider now the issue of objectivity when assessing the authority of evidence from the

randomized clinical trial. Holman (1993) proposes that the search for objectivity through

reductionist strategies (i.e., randomized clinical trials and EBM) led researchers to express

results in quantitative terms. This was viewed as the means by which validity could be increased,

bias eliminated and objectivity assured. Historically, this is directly linked to the ―Science of

Man Agenda‖ outlined by Kay (1993) in The Molecular Vision of Life. The evolution of

molecular biology and the data required to justify public policy surrounding issues of social

control, was rooted in the reductionist, quantitative methodology. The empiricism required by

the ―Science of Man Agenda‖ was the precursor to evidence-based medicine. This methodology

was the quantifiable rationalization required by academia and industry to advance science and

technology and the social control agenda of the government and the industry leaders. Shrouded

in the veil of objectivity, these reductionist research methodologies eliminated the notion and

value of the individual. Hence, the person previously known as the patient was now referred to

as the objective subject under study.

Holman (1993) also argues that the focus and recognition of the quantitative EBM/gold

standard methodology may have established flawed standards of clinical practice and research,

which may have delayed the development of essential medical knowledge. He asserts, quite

accurately, ―Good clinical thought requires recognition of the co-existence of generality and

individuality‖ (p. 35).

EBM + RCT = Objectivity?

Now what of the requirement for objectivity? One of the key criticisms of non-

quantitative EBM/gold standard methodology is that it is too subjective and devoid of facts.

17

Malterud (2001) proposes as a defence that ―Qualitative research methods involve the systematic

collection, organization, and interpretation of textual material derived from talk or observation‖

(p. 483). How then is it possible to incorporate the perception and bias of the researcher while

considering their own objective and subjective views? If we consider Haraway (1985) and her

Cyborg analysis of ―situated knowledge,‖ she proposes that there is no such thing as the neutral

observer because the observer is always constrained and pre-determined by what is known and

visible. Her argument proposes that there is a lack of objectivity in science regardless of the

methodology used because science is always situated within a particular framework and

according to certain power relationships that link the researcher, the sponsor and the benefactor

of research. This perspective is also espoused by other feminist scholars including Dorothy

Smith and Nancy Hartstock, and anti-racist thinkers such as Roxana Ng and George Seifa Dei.

This section began with a critique of the primacy of the scientific method and the

presumed authority of the randomized clinical trial as the hallmark of EBM based on the

assumed superior methodology addressing validity, bias and, finally, objectivity. Quite clearly,

there are flawed assumptions about the strengths and weaknesses of this methodology. The

authority of the data and knowledge production that results and is elevated to the status of gold

standard requires critical examination and skepticism.

I will conclude this section with a final analysis by Feinstein (1984):

Whether we like it or not, most of our future decisions about medical practice,

health care, and scientific technology will have to be made without evidence from

randomized trials. To acknowledge this reality requires no loss of reverence,

allegiance, or respect for the primacy of randomized trials as a ―gold standard‖ in

scientific research. Furthermore, we commit neither sacrilege nor disloyalty by

recognizing that randomized trials cannot always be done, that they do not always

yield unequivocal answers when done, and that alternative scientific methods

must be developed to get satisfactory answers to questions for which randomized

trials are either impossible or inadequate. (p. 772)

Evaluation and Standardization of Knowledge Production

Feinstein and Horwitz (1997) propose that there are specific criteria by which evidence

can be evaluated and, ultimately, constituted as evidence. Within the model of evidence-based

medicine, they propose that knowledge production should be evaluated according to the

following criteria:

18

1. Quality and scope of data. This criterion prioritizes the knowledge derived from

evidence-based medicine and minimizes data from other sources.

2. The scope of topics. Randomized clinical trials target the ―average‖ patient and then

generalize the resulting data. Historically, the average patient was a healthy, white

male population. The resulting information was then standardized across populations.

3. Prophylactic therapy for ―risk factor.‖ Randomized clinical trials are unable to

properly address challenges where the targeted research attempts to reduce risk

factors and not disease states. This limits the scope of potential research.

4. The ―grey zones of practice‖ where the results of randomized clinical trials are

inconclusive.

5. Pathophysiologic principles. Individual medical and physical histories determine

treatment and not a pre-determined standard that results from the randomized clinical

trial.

6. Situations where the model of the randomized clinical trial is either not pertinent or

possible.

Clearly, the challenge with these criteria for evidence must address a satisfactory method

by which to account for personal preferences, psychosocial factors, comfort and reassurance of

the individual. This leads to individualization and not standardization.

Consider then, the related issue of equivalence versus standardization. Equivalence of

therapeutics or treatment modalities runs contrary to the notion of a gold standard which is based

on superiority of one over another. Equivalence allows for choice and competition based on what

is best for the individual and not what is the approved standard for all. The notion of equivalence

appears to be in conflict with the emphasis on evidence-based medicine. Quantitatively,

evidence-based medicine attempts to prove that a significant difference exists between

therapeutic options. Ironically, there is no gold standard criteria to construct and support

equivalence claims using ―clinically meaningful differences, or by extension, to determine

whether the difference truly matters therapeutically (Green, Concato, & Feinstein, 2000).

19

In some clinical trials, however, it is not expected that a new treatment will be

superior to an existing standard. It may be realistic only to expect that a new

treatment is in some sense ―equivalent‖ to an existing established one, and it may

be the objective of a clinical trial to provide adequate evidence of such

equivalence. (Huson, 2001, p. 2)

Perhaps an alternative methodology for assessing knowledge production is to consider

knowledge along a spectrum of a continuum of increasing evidence. Currently, the standard for

assessing knowledge relative to the RCT and EBM is through the phased therapeutic agent

development process. A new therapeutic agent is assessed through a process that begins pre-

clinically and passes through four phases of development (Campbell et al., 2000). Consider the

following illustration of this process as an example.

The pre-clinical phase is primarily the theoretical phase. Research at this phase theorizes

about the potential safety margins between therapeutic and toxicity, reviews potential safety

profiles across different species and attempts to hypothesize about optimal dose ranges,

formulations and frequency of administration.

Phase 1 is considered the human pharmacology phase where there is an initial

introduction of the new therapeutic into humans. Typically, these are healthy volunteers and the

resulting knowledge will provide guidance on preliminary safety screening, tolerance, adverse

effects and metabolic and pharmacological action in small numbers of human. This is considered

the modeling phase where the components under investigation will be defined.

Phase 2 is the therapeutic exploratory phase where the goal is to confirm an acceptable

and feasible profile of action of the therapeutic agent. Knowledge produced will yield

preliminary efficacy findings in patients with the targeted disease or indication, the short-term

safety profile, and, a potential optimal dose range. The end result of this phase using moderate

numbers of patients (typically, 100-250 patients) is to justify future development and progression

to large-scale phase 3 testing.

The phase 3 stage is the definitive RCT where the end result is therapeutic confirmation.

Large numbers of patients under examination will receive treatment in well-controlled studies

(the hallmark being the randomized, double-blind pivotal clinical trial) where the purpose is to

demonstrate short and long-term safety and efficacy while assessing overall therapeutic value.

20

The final phase 4 occurs after the therapeutic agent has received regulatory approval and

attempts to yield information from long-term usage and implementation (Campbell et al., 2000).

If knowledge production is assessed along a continuum, is it possible to push beyond the

limit of the gold standard and propose that a platinum standard is possible? If the double-blind,

RCT is accepted by the scientific community as the objective, scientific methodology which

produces knowledge untainted by bias and, hence, considered the truth or the gold standard, is

there a level of knowledge that is indisputable (Kaptchuk, 2001). The RCT cloaks itself as the

embodiment of the ideal of the scientific method. Consider the space between the knowledge

from the RCT and the discrepancies between knowledge produced from other, alternative

scientific methodologies. Are there ‗sub-phases‘ to include between a traditional phased

approach to medical drug development in the example outlined previously?

Presumably, if all methodologies result in the same knowledge production and

conclusions, the resulting standard assumes the highest position along the hierarchy of

knowledge production and assessment. Is this then the pinnacle of objectivity? Haraway (1985)

would still propose that this is simply not possible given the inherent lack of objectivity in

science as situated within a particular framework and relative to certain, established power

relationships. I would also extend this analogy with the Foucauldian perspective that objectivity

is situated according to previously established normalized knowledge (Foucault, 1975).

Historically, this has meant that science has a context and history that has excluded feminism,

and challenges associated with critical pedagogy including (but not limited to), critical race

theory, queer theory and post-colonial theory. As a result, objective truth is never possible and

standardization is as irrelevant as it is impossible.

There is value in the analysis of alternative methodologies that fly in the face of the RCT

and EBM. Qualitative methodologies can help bridge the gap between scientific evidence and

clinical practice. By contextualizing treatment regimens within real life situations, the knowledge

produced by EBM can then be individualized (Green & Britten, 1998; Pope & Mays, 1995). In

essence, gold standards for all become best options for the individual after careful, individual

analysis and not in spite of it.

21

A Brief Literature Review: The Role of Public Scientific Literacy in Public Policy

Development

Consider now the role of society and individuals. I believe a critical point of analysis in

this project is the role that the public plays in understanding and being complicit

(consciously/unconsciously) in the validation of knowledge production in science and

technology. Scientific literacy and the ability to understand and subsequently critique, is critical

for an engaged public. The ability to make a choice begins with the ability to understand.

However, defining what it means to have scientific literacy and what the expectation is for the

general population is problematic. Consider this introductory quote by Jon Turney (1996):

The scientist‘s lament about public understanding of science is often heard. But

scientific understanding is not merely a matter of scientific literacy; it also

embraces issues of trust in scientists, doctors, and sources of information. People

have an appetite for scientific information, and they are good at sifting the

information relevant to their lives. Nonetheless, the onus will increasingly be on

the scientist to explain scientific findings in ways that a range of publics can use.

So, we need to improve the scientist‘s understanding of the public. (p. 1087)

Consider then that the definition of scientific literacy is two-fold: the ability of an

individual to understand scientific concepts and the ability of the scientific community to

disseminate information in an appropriate and comprehensible manner. Turney (1996) goes on to

propose that the majority of scientific information is irrelevant to the average person and the

general public. He suggests that a central problem is the ability on both sides of the definition to

be able to distil what is critical and what is not in order to increase understanding. A Royal

Society (1985, p. 6) report argued that scientific literacy ―can be a major element in promoting

national prosperity, in raising the quality of public and private decision-making and in enriching

the life of the individual.‖ Clearly, scientific literacy is a desirable skill but what does it mean for

the individual and for society?

DeBoer (2000, p. 582) proposes that ―Scientific literacy is a term that has been used since

the late 1950s to describe a desired familiarity with science on the part of the general public.‖

Typically, a discussion of scientific literacy focuses on the successes or failings of the academic

system to adequately educate a population in science education. An illiterate scientific public is

considered a failing of the school system. However, this is too narrow a causality that negates

22

cultural and social differences where the priority of education is based on a hierarchy of certain

subjects. Consider that the popular culture approach to education is based on the three ―R‘s‖:

reading, writing and arithmetic. Scientific education is peripheral at best in this model within the

confines of mathematics. While understanding the downstream effects of scientific failings

within the school system are a key part of the individual and public understanding of science, a

detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, this discussion will focus on what

scientific literacy means and the effect it has on an individual and the public‘s decision-making.

Historically, the surge in scientific education occurred in and around the end of World

War II. Increasing a nation‘s capacity in science and technology was politically and

economically linked to increasing the domestic economy and creating national security through

innovation and technological advances (DeBoer, 2000). In the period following approximately

from the late 1950s to the early 1980s, the focus was on space exploration and the strategic use

of science for society. What also followed was a more acute understanding of the responsibility

that individual‘s hold with the creation and use of scientific knowledge. What was being ushered

in was the age of the technological economy. It was a time of exploiting science for economic

gain and a search for commercial applications of technology and not just scientific literacy.

―Scientific literacy was to provide a broad understanding of science and of the rapidly

developing scientific enterprise whether one was to become a scientist or not‖ (DeBoer, 2000, p.

586).

What is the current age? DeBoer does not propose a historical framework for positioning

the current age of scientific literacy but I would propose that we are in scientific overload. The

mass uptake of email and the internet have allowed information to flow more freely than at any

other time in history. This has challenges on several fronts: understanding the information,

critiquing the source, challenging information, disseminating what is relevant and finally,

decision-making and implementation. The mass amount of misinformation has created a

propaganda machine that can counter the credible science with falsehoods. It is in this vein that I

feel it is critical to include an analysis of the role of biocapital and biopolitics, alongside a

critique of evidence-based medicine and the role of scientific literacy within societies.

This creates a situation where if an individual, and ultimately, society, begins from a

place of understanding that is rooted in the scientific failing of the education system (that is to

23

say, misunderstanding of science), they will not possess the necessary skills to continue to learn,

understand and more importantly, challenge science. Consequently, the nation-state‘s ability to

convince the public of the importance of the innovation discourse in national economic and

security policy development becomes of critical importance and effect.

What should the goals of scientific teaching and understanding then be for a society?

DeBoer (2000) proposes that there are nine distinct goals that a society should strive for. These

include:

1. Teaching and learning about science as a cultural force in the modern world. Consider

that science constitutes part of cultural understanding that should be passed from

generation to generation where all members of a society have a responsibility to have

a basic understanding of the natural world and how it functions.

2. Preparation for the world of work. Consider that understanding science and

technology provides the basic skills required to succeed at all types of employment.

Analytical and critical analyses skills are integral and desirable skills.

3. Teaching and learning about science that has direct application to everyday living.

Consider that understanding such concepts as electricity, water purification and

human anatomy and physiology are critical to an individual‘s personal health and

well-being but also the ability of a society as a collective to make informed decisions.

4. Teaching students to be informed citizens; preparation for active citizenship.

Consider that the ability to implement science-related social issues is predicated on a

basic understanding of the science and technology that defines the issue. A successful

democratic society is predicated on each individual member having the ability to

speak out (and vote) against nuclear power and genetically modified foods because

they understand and appreciated why they are wrong; should they choose.

5. Learning about science as a particular way of examining the natural world. Consider

that understanding science and how scientific knowledge is created (the application of

the scientific method) creates skills such as objectivity, subjectivity, understanding

bias and the ability to critically assess.

24

6. Understanding reports and discussions of science that appear in the popular media.

Consider that an individual should be able to critically appraise and disseminate

relevant and credible scientific information. Central to this challenge is the issue of

the ‗expert‘ and the ability of the individual to challenge the validity of the proposed

expert. Within a democracy, the ability of the individual and the group to challenge

the proposed expert knowledge is critical to making informed decisions.

7. Learning about science for its aesthetic appeal. Consider that there is incredible

wonder and diversity in the natural world that should be celebrated and revered. An

appreciation of Mother Nature and all her wonders leads to a greater respect and

reverence for all the life that she creates and supports.

8. Preparing citizens who are sympathetic to science. Consider that the pursuit of

science and technology are noble goals that usually result in beneficent results for

society. By creating a democratic citizenry that appreciates science, it is a society that

will support science and technology both politically and economically.

9. Understanding the nature and importance of technology and the relationship between

technology and science. Consider that technology is the application of science to

some commercial, social, economic or political end. The democratic citizenry is

charged with the responsibility to critically assess the value of technology and its‘

application within a society. Technology must be assessed for its social and

environmental impact on individuals and a society. There is also a moral

responsibility to consider the global impact of technology beyond the local and

beyond the current generation.

While DeBoer provides a robust framework for understanding the goals of scientific

literacy, he focuses on this framework as a guideline for structuring scientific teaching and not

on general public literacy and the relationship to decision-making. Young (2000, p. 8) proposes

that ―The crux of the science-literacy problem is that, without the tools to assess the merits of

various claims of scientific truth, the public may be unable to distinguish between revolutionary

science from sheer quackery.‖ Accepting that comprehension of information forms the basis of

knowledge and that this is a prerequisite to understanding, decision-making and implementation

25

of change and action can only follow after this point. The motivation that compels an individual

to action will be discussed shortly.

Turney (1996) continues this discussion by placing the onus to increase the public‘s

understanding on the shoulders of the scientific community. He proposes that there are two

primary ways to accomplish this. Firstly, individuals are usually, primarily interested in health

and biomedical information. Secondly, there is (blind) ―optimism‖ in society that technology

always provides good and useful things. The uptake of both these two topics areas is the path to

increasing general scientific literacy. Augustine (1998, p. 1641) proposes that ―It has often been

debated whether scientists need to be exposed to the liberal arts; a more compelling need, in my

opinion, is for poets to be exposed to physics.‖

The question is then why? Why a goal of widespread scientific literacy for all members

of society? I think the critical answer to this lies in the individual‘s ability to determine a

scientific fact or truth or falsehood or ambiguity. How this happens is two-fold. It requires a

basic understanding of the information as it is was discovered and presented and how it is linked

into all knowledge in a subject area. Secondly, it requires the ability to assess the validity of the

expert. ―People will also bring to bear what they know about the sources of information – their

history, interests, and habitual veracity. That is, they use their own expertise about society and

everyday life to decide who is trustworthy‖ (Turney, 1996, p. 1089).

Faulty or flawed decision-making can have deleterious effects for both the individual and

all society. For example, there is a central tenet in the biomedical research complex where the

written, informed consent of an individual is required prior to participation in any research. The

ability of the individual to assess all possible risks prior to decision-making requires

understanding of the science behind the research. Societal decision-making should follow this

same framework where an assessment of all possible risks, including, personal, social, economic,

political and physical, are weighed and considered accordingly.

How skilled the individual and the public are produces debate. Normile (1996)

summarized two studies produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) Symposium on Public Understanding of Science and Technology. The

first study assessed the public‘s interest in science versus the public‘s knowledge of science. In

26

the 14 OECD countries that were evaluated, all nations had a self-described interest in science

ranging from approximately 25% of the population (Japan) on the low end to nearly 60% of the

population (United States) on the high end. However, the same 14 countries averaged out at 10%

of the population considering themselves to be well-informed. Hence, lots of interest, little

knowledge. The second study assessed attitudes towards science and technology within young

people of the same 14 OECD countries. The primary findings in that study indicate that young

people are concerned more with technology and less with the physical sciences (the smartphone

generation). As well, they were more interested in science and technology in instances where

there was application to future jobs and careers (economic and utilitarian benefit).

Macilwain (1998) proposes similar results produced by a National Science Foundation

(NSF, US) study where Americans held an approval rating of nearly 70% for the ―scientific

promise‖ that they felt was possible with science and technological research. There was

overwhelming positivity towards what science could accomplish which was attributed to

successes in technology (primarily in telecommunications). However, the study found that there

was little change in the public‘s ability to grasp basic science concepts where only 11% could

explain what a molecule was; again, interest high, knowledge low.

Holden (1995) reports similar results. In a study conducted by the University of

Chicago‘s National Opinion Research Center (NORC), the topic of the survey was on the

environment and 20 countries participated where they were asked 12 true or false statements

about the environment. Canada scored the best on the survey with an average of 7.6 correct

answers. The United States was 7th.

I included the preceding section on scientific literacy as a key material construct that is

necessary to deconstructing the role that a public understanding of science plays in the

construction of the innovation discourse. While this was a brief overview, I see this as a robust

area for additional exploration.

A Brief Literature Review: The Role of Bioeconomics, Biopolitics and Biocapital

Understanding the relationship of economics, politics and capital within the biological

and life sciences is a critical intersection point where we can better understand the role that

knowledge production plays in national economic and security strategies.

27

Sunder Rajan‘s (2006) work on biocapital is a key text to analyse these intersection

points. He brings together the literature on economics, politics and capital and the societal impact

of the biological sciences in a critical and accessible way.

He begins his discussion by positioning capitalism, generally, and biocapitalism,

specifically as a dynamic process and not as a stable institution. This is the key to understanding

his thesis: ―the life sciences represent a new face, and a new phase, of capitalism and,

consequently, that biotechnology is a form of enterprise inextricable from contemporary

capitalism.‖ He goes on to explain this further, ―I conceive of the relationship of ―biocapital‖ as a

concept to contemporary systems of capitalism and to emergent scientific and technological

horizons in the life sciences‖ (Sunder Rajan, 2006, p. 3).

His work is an ethnographic approach that focuses on the relationship between these

intersection points and the relationship to ―the social‖ and the ―coproduction‖ aspects of science

and technological development. He employs a Marxist analysis in his discussion. He argues that

biocapitalism is a subset of capitalism and manifests its implementation differently and

specifically across various global sites. He provides a working definition of biocapital as:

―Biocapital‖ is a study of the systems of exchange and circulation involved in the

contemporary workings of the life sciences, but is also a study of those life

sciences as they become increasingly foundational epistemologies for our time. In

the form register, it is indeed a subset or ―case study‖ of contemporary capitalism;

in the latter, it points to the specifically biopolitical dimensions of contemporary

capitalism. (Sunder Rajan, 2006, p. 12)

The notion of biopolitics was proposed by Michel Foucault. He proposed his theory of

biopolitics as a form of social control where,

discipline tries to rule a multiplicity of men to the extent that their multiplicity can

and must be dissolved into individual bodies that can be kept under surveillance,

trained, used, and, if need be, punished. And that the new technology that is being

established is addressed to a multiplicity of men, not to the extent that they form,

on the contrary, a global mass that is affected by overall processes characteristic

of birth, death, production, illness, and so on. So after a first seizure of power over

the body in an individualizing mode, we have a second seizure of power that is

not individualizing but, if you like, massifying, that is directed not at man-as-body

but at man-as-species. After the anatomo-politics of the human body established

in the course of the eighteenth century, we have, at the end of that century, the

emergence of something that is no longer an anatomo-politics of the human body,

28

but what I would call a ―biopolitics‖ of the human race. (Foucault, 2008, pp. 242-

243)

Sunder Rajan employs this analysis with the emergence of biotechnology and the

sequencing of the human genome. The codes of life are used to exert micro-control on

individuals towards the goal of macro-social control or ―massifying‖ goals of social control. For

both him and Foucault, ―Medicine is a power-knowledge that can be applied to both the body

and the population, both the organism and biological processes, and it will therefore have both

disciplinary effects and regulatory effects‖ (Foucault, 2008, p. 252).

Foucault goes on to clarify his definition. ―Biopolitics deals with the population, with the

population as political problem, as a problem that is at once scientific and political, as a

biological problem and as power‘s problem. And I think that biopolitics emerges at this time‖

(Foucault, 1976, p. 245).

―The new biopolitics‖ is the discussion proposed by Yu and Liu (2010). They propose

that,

The politicization of natural life has never ceased. The biotech revolution changes

and reconstructs the Foucaultian concept of biopolitics from different dimensions,

and declares the coming of the Age of Biocapitalism. This Age has opened a new

pattern of modern power allocation in the area of life governance. In this

neocapitalism, new biopolitics have gone beyond the forging, kneading and

enslaving of bodies, and deep into the macro-level structure of nation, race and

gender. It revolves around the ―biocapital‖ to start a strong attack on traditional

power politics and technical politics. (Yu & Liu, 2010, pp. 288-289)

They complete their discussion with a call for merging ethics with the risks and

responsibilities inherent in new technology and the resulting knowledge production. This

responsibility rests, in their opinion, with the scientists who hold and control the knowledge and

the biocapital.

Consider now the relationship between commodification and biocapital. The

commodification of knowledge is the theme focused on by Jacob (2009). He employs a Marxist

analysis to analyse the concept of commodification of knowledge as a guiding principle in the

scientific community and the role that academia plays/should play. He explores two issues: how

29

to explore commodification beyond the basics of monetary exchange and secondly, how

commodification guides the governance of public science. He summarizes his approach as:

By focusing on the commodification of science as a process and the elucidation of

the properties of science as commodity, the paper connects the broad more case

driven discussions about commercialization and commodification in science to

the broader social theoretical discussion about commodification...Last but not

least, by connecting commodification and governance at the macro policy level, it

is hoped that the paper will make a contribution to starting a debate between those

who do work on research and innovation policy and those who do higher

education research. (Jacob, 2009, pp. 403-404)

To conclude this section, I will draw on the analysis by Ruffolo (2008), where he draws

on Foucault again to extend the analysis of bio-power and biopolitical production.

The intersection of bodies and institutions is at the center of biopolitical

productions that seek to normalize bodies through disciplinary practices. What is

particularly relevant here is how these productivities result in the creation of