Introduction

Abstract

In recent years the relation between science and society has become strained. In some parts of the world, mainly in the United States, science is said to be 'at war' with society (Otto, 2016). In others, particularly the United Kingdom, scientists have been dragged into debates over suspicion and contempt of experts, primarily economists (Mance, 2016). These developments play out against a series of crises in science, technology, politics and the economy, which are all interlinked.In politics and economics, one can mention the 2008 financial crisis, threats posed by terrorism, rising tensions around the place of religion in science and society, the ascent of political populism, and, more recently, debates about the United Kingdom leaving the European Union -an exit (dubbed 'Brexit') that will have profound consequences for society, science and different forms of expertise. In the United States, a new presidency challenges established relations between science and politics, as well as between these domains, journalism and the public. In technology, controversies arise from increasing digitalisation, automation, cybercrime and much more, but also from the maturing of novel energy technologies and biotechnologies. These new technologies bring with them a range of ethical problems.This volume uses recent developments in science-society relations as a focal point for exploring the tensions and contradictions raised by these large-scale issues. Over the last thirty years in the UK and beyond, science, policy and the public have come into conflict in a series of political crises. Examples include the BSE (bovine spongiform

Open Science and Open Innovation in a socio‐political context: knowledge production for societal impact in an age of post‐truth populism

“…6–7). Evolving scientific paradigms, in this way, might play into some of the fears expressed by scholars about how science relates to the rise of a populist ‘politics of openness’, behind which may lurk ‘metaphorical dragons or monsters’ (Nerlich et al, , p. 3). The democratisation at the heart of post‐normal science, which ‘purport[s] to bring science, society and publics closer together through processes of openness, access and transparency’ may have a negative as well as a positive side (Nerlich et al, , p. 4).…”

“…Innovation can only follow from practice should the institutional channels be in place. Similarly, as recent critics of openness remind us, ‘[s]cience cannot function without some monopolisation of expertise’, and hence democratic discussion infringes upon specialised knowledge (Turner, 2003, quoted in Nerlich et al, , p. 5). This risk is especially acute in a post‐truth age where populism demands the stripping away of layers of mediation and deliberation between the public and technocratic or expert elites that can help sift what is objective or practical from what is not.…”

“…In the 21 st century, as science adapts to networked technologies, the concept of Open Science as conceived in the tradition of Merton is evolving. The populist politics of openness resonates in ‘policy initiatives to “open up” science in response to perceived legitimacy crises in research and innovation systems and in the relationship between science and policymaking’ (Nerlich et al, , p. 3). This legitimacy crisis not only owes in part to the decline of Mertonian norms, but may incubate much worse if unexplored, posing the question as to whether a return to Merton offers a renewed moral purpose and agency for future science and innovation endeavours; in a world with pressing global challenges.…”

“…The emplacement of the new Open Science practices within the existing institutional environment that gives primacy to the privatisation of science causes tension and particularly the privatisation of funding, the private appropriation of the fruits of science in the form of property, and the hedging of collectively produced knowledge behind paywalls of various kinds. Nevertheless, cognisance of these norms is imperative to develop openness in knowledge production regimes, whilst protecting it against what recent scholarship has termed a ‘monstrous’ populist ‘politics of openness’ (Nerlich et al, ).…”

“…Meanwhile, the rise of a populist post‐truth style opposed to objectivity, expertise, mediation and technocratic political solutions grants the demand for openness and participation a different complexion. The dangers this poses to scientific inquiry and innovation have been noted by a series of scholars writing in the wake of the national‐populist political upheavals of recent years (Fisher, ; Long and Blok, ; Brown, ; Kelly and McGoey, ; Nerlich et al, ). This paper suggests that, by removing normative constraints, an agenda of openness in a post‐truth age may contradictorily throw up barriers to beneficial innovation that compromises the generative link between Open Science and Open Innovation.…”