Send message to Author

Short abstract:

I present a case studies that highlights the role of dissent in internal quality control of science to show that it can be characterized as a social form of quality control in science and is brought to live in several “institutional” forms and that dissent is influenced by non-epistemic values.

Long abstract:

In recent years, dissent has been mainly discussed as a driver of scientific progress, but less as a form of self-control in science. In this paper, I focus on dissent to understand similarities and tensions between “social” and “institutional” forms of quality control. Besides the peer review process there are various other mechanisms of self-regulation, such as scientific conferences and discussions, as well as the social organization of dissent in general. An traditional example of this idea can be found in Merton's (1972) norms, where "organized skepticism" plays a central role for preserving scientific quality. However, despite being referenced at various points in the scientific literature these different control mechanisms, their roles, points of intervention, and actors are often only marginally discussed.

To identify and analyze the self-control functions of scientific dissent, including the different roles of scientists and the limits of quality control, this study examines the scientific progress and concept of quality through a case study on the HIV-Aids-Debate around Peter Duesberg. I will argue that dissent can be characterized as a “social” form of quality control, which is implemented in and accompanied by several “institutional” forms, which may create tensions between these two. Moreover, I show that scientific dissent and discourses are often influenced by non-epistemic values and internal power-structures of the scientific community, which can limit but also significantly strengthen the self-control abilities of science. With this I want to clarify under which exact conditions diversity can be a driver for better quality control.