The Starnberg finalization thesis offered a cognitive diagnosis of the relevance of science. With the present changes in science and its links with society, this remains important, but needs to be broadened. Relevance occurred and continues to occur locally, and can be taken up in local—cosmopolitan fields (my broadened definition of scientific fields). Chemistry is discussed as an example. The possibility of intrinsic relevance has been obliterated by the historical process of “purification” of science, including what is now called strategic science. While the pressure for relevance can lead to fragmentation, this is not necessary. A diagnosis of socio-cognitive dynamics must be made. Quality assurance resides in circulation, aggregation and robustness of outcomes.
Ackermann, R.J. (1985) Data, Instruments and Theory. A Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Bernal, J.D. (1967) The Social Function of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Uses original edition of 1939, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, with an afterword “After Twenty-five Years”).
3.
Biagioli, M. (1993) Galileo, Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
4.
Böhme, G. (1983) “Autonomization and Finalization. A Comparison of Fermentation Research and Fluid Mechanics”, in W. Schäffer (ed.) Finalization in Science, pp. 53-91. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
5.
Böhme, G. , Van den Daele, W. and Krohn, W. (1972), “Alternativen in der Wissenschaft”, Zeitschrift für Soziologie1: 302-316.
6.
Böhme, G. , Van den Daele, W. and Krohn, W. (1977) Experimentelle Philosophie. Ursprünge autonomer Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
7.
Böhme, G. , Van den Daele, W. and Krohn, W. (1978) “Alternatives in Science”, International Journal of Sociology8: 70-94.
8.
Brookman, F.H. (1979) “The Making of a Science Policy. A Historical Study of the Institutional and Conceptual Background to Dutch Science Policy in a West-European Perspective”, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
9.
Bud, R.F. and Roberts, G.K. (1984) Science versus Practice. Chemistry in Victorian Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
10.
Bush, V. (1945) Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
11.
Callon, M. (1995) “Four Models for the Dynamics of Science”, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 29-63. London: Sage.
12.
Callon, M. , Larédo, P. and Mustar, P., eds (1995) La gestion stratégique de la recherche et de la technologie. L'évaluation des programmes. Paris: Economica.
13.
Cardwell, D.S.L. (1972) Technology, Science and History. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
14.
Cozzens, S.E. , Healey, P., Rip, A. and Ziman, J., eds (1990) The Research System in Transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. (NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, D: Behavioural and Social Sciences, Vol. 57.)
15.
Daniels, G.H. (1967) “The Pure-Science Ideal and Democratic Culture”, Science156: 1699-1705.
16.
Disco, C. , Rip, A. and Van der Meulen, B. (1992) “Technical Innovation and the Universities: Divisions of Labour in Cosmopolitan Technical Regimes”, Social Science Information31(3): 465-507.
17.
Dits, H. (1988) “Turn to Coal. Mission Orientation of Academic Research”, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
18.
Elias, N. , Martins, H. and Whitley, R., eds (1982) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
19.
Elzinga, A. (1997) “The Science-Society Contract in Historical Transformation with Special Reference to `Epistemic Drift' ”, Social Science Information36(3): 411-445.
20.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
21.
Gouldner, A.W. (1957) “Cosmopolitans and Locals: Towards an Analysis of Latent Social Roles, I”, Administrative Science Quarterly22(4): 281-306.
22.
Gouldner, A.W. (1958) “Cosmopolitans and Locals: Towards an Analysis of Latent Social Roles, II”, Administrative Science Quarterly23(1): 444-480.
23.
Greenberg, D.S. (1969) The Politics of American Science. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
24.
Hacking, I. (1992) “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences”, in A. Pickering (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture, pp. 29-64. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Hohlfeld, R. (1983) “Cancer Research: A Study of Praxis-Related Theoretical Developments in Chemistry, the Biosciences and Medicine”, in W. Schäffer (ed.) Finalization in Science, pp. 93-126. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
26.
Hufbauer, K. (1982) The Formation of the German Chemical Community (1720-1795). Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Irvine, J. and Martin, B.R. (1984) Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners. London: Frances Pinter.
28.
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Jasanoff, S. , Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C. and Pinch, T., eds (1995) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage.
30.
Johnston, R. (1990) “Strategic Policy for Science”, in S.E. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip and J. Ziman (eds) The Research System in Transition, pp. 213-226. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. (NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, D: Behavioural and Social Sciences, Vol. 57.)
31.
Kevles, D.J. (1978) The Physicists. The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
32.
Knorr Cetina, K.D. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
33.
Krohn, W. and Küppers, G. (1989) Die Selbstorganisation der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
34.
Krohn, W. , Küppers, G. and Nowotny, H., eds (1990) Self-Organization of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
35.
Krohn, W. and Weyer, J. (1994) “Society as a Laboratory: The Social Risks of Experimental Research”, Science and Public Policy21: 173-183.
36.
Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
Leeming, W. (1997) “Revisiting Finalization”, Social Science Information36(3): 387-410.
38.
McGee, M.C. (1980) “The `Ideograph': A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology”, The Quarterly Journal of Speech66: 1-16.
39.
Merton, R.K. (1942) “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order”, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1: 15-26.
40.
Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. Enlarged Edition. New York: Free Press.
41.
Nelson, R.R. (1977) The Moon and the Ghetto. New York: Norton.
42.
Pfetsch, F.R. (1979) “The `Finalization' Debate in Germany: Some Comments and Explanations”, Social Studies of Science9: 115-124.
43.
Pickering, A. , ed. (1992) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rettig, R.A. (1977) Cancer Crusade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Rip, A. (1981) “A Cognitive Approach to Science Policy”, Research Policy10: 294-311.
47.
Rip, A. (1982) “The Development of Restrictedness in the Sciences”, in N. Elias, H. Martins and R. Whitley (eds) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, pp. 219-238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
48.
Rip, A. (1985) “Interdisciplinarity Without Disciplines? A View from the Sociology of Science”, in B.W. Mar, W.T. Newell and B.O. Saxberg (eds) Managing High Technology, pp. 185-192. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
49.
Rip, A. (1990a) “Implementation and Evaluation of Science & Technology Priorities and Programs”, in S.E. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip and J. Ziman (eds) The Research System in Transition, pp. 263-280. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. (NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, D: Behavioural and Social Sciences, Vol. 57.)
50.
Rip, A. (1990b) “The Research System in Transition - To What?”, in S.E. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip and J. Ziman (eds) The Research System in Transition, pp. 387-401. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. (NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, D: Behavioural and Social Sciences, Vol. 57.)
51.
Rip, A. (1992) “Science and Technology as Dancing Partners”, in P. Kroes and M. Bakker (eds) Technological Development and Sciences in the Industrial Age, pp. 231-270. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
52.
Rip, A. (1995) “Le poids des phases initiales dans le déroulement des programmes”, in M. Callon, P. Larédo, and P. Mustar (eds) La gestion stratégique de la recherche et de la technologie. L'évaluation des programmes, pp. 111-124. Paris: Economica.
53.
Rip, A. and Nederhof, A.J. (1986) “Between Dirigism and Laisser Faire: Effects of Implementing the Science Policy Priority for Biotechnology in the Netherlands”, Research Policy15: 253-268.
54.
Rose, H. and Rose, S. (1969) Science and Society. Harmondsworth: Allen Lane Penguin Press.
55.
Salomon, J.-J. (1970) Science et politique. Paris: Seuil.
56.
Schäffer, W. , ed. (1983) Finalization in Science. The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
57.
Shrum, W. (1984) “Scientific Specialities and Technical Systems”, Social Studies of Science14: 63-90.
58.
Slack, J. (1972) “Class Struggle among the Molecules”, in T. Pateman (ed.) Counter Course. A Handbook for Course Criticism, pp. 202-217. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
59.
Stapleton, D.H. (1993) “The Faustian Dilemmas of Funded Research at Case Institute and Western Reserve, 1945-1965”, Science, Technology and Human Values18(3): 303-314.
60.
Van den Belt, H. and Rip, A. (1987) “The Nelson-Winter-Dosi Model and Synthetic Dye Chemistry”, in W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems, pp. 135-158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
Van den Daele, W. (1978) “The Ambivalent Legitimacy of the Pursuit of Knowledge”, in E. Boeker and M. Gibbons (eds) Science, Society and Education, pp. 23-61. Amsterdam: Free University Press.
62.
Van den Daele, W. , Krohn, W. and Weingart, P., eds (1979) Geplante Forschung. Vergleichende Studien über den Einfluss politischer Programme auf die Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
63.
Van Lente, H. (1993) “Promising Technology. The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments”, PhD dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
64.
Van Lente, H. and Rip, A. (1998), “The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetoric to Social Reality”, Social Studies of Science28 (forthcoming).
65.
Webster, A. (1994) “University-Corporate Research Ties and the Construction of Research Agendas”, Sociology28: 123-142.
66.
Whitley, R. (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
67.
Ziman, J.M. (1990) “What is Happening to Science?”, in S.E. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip and J. Ziman (eds) The Research System in Transition, pp. 23-33. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. (NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, D: Behavioural and Social Sciences, Vol. 57.)
68.
Ziman, J.M. (1994) Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
