What is the appropriate place for science in society? Despite the vast literature on the subject, the science–society relation remains a disputed issue. A major reason is that, when we are asking about the right place of science in society, we are actually asking a range of interrelated and hard-to-answer individual questions. These questions include the role of social values in the research process, the neutrality of science in policy, the interplay between evidence and decision-making, and many others. A sensible way to organize these questions—and the set of potential answers—are science–society interaction models (SSIMs). SSIMs reduce the complexity of the science–society relation and provide generic templates for interactions between scientists and non-scientists. However, SSIMs are often used in an unproductive way, namely as antagonistic camps or as representations of real-world actors’ beliefs. Focusing on the popular distinction between technocratic, decisionist, and pragmatist models, this paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of SSIMs. It argues that SSIMs should not, as is often done in the science–society literature, be understood as antagonistic camps or representations of actor beliefs, but as ideal types and heuristics. Building on this interpretation, this paper presents tentative ideas for a reflexive tool that real-world actors can use to assess their fundamental assumptions about science and society.

科学在社会中的适当位置是什么？尽管有大量关于这个主题的文献，但科学与社会的关系仍然是一个有争议的问题。一个主要原因是，当我们询问科学在社会中的正确位置时，我们实际上是在询问一系列相互关联且难以回答的个别问题。这些问题包括社会价值观在研究过程中的作用、科学在政策中的中立性、证据与决策之间的相互作用等等。组织这些问题以及潜在答案集的一种明智方法是科学-社会互动模型 (SSIM)。SSIM 降低了科学与社会关系的复杂性，并为科学家和非科学家之间的互动提供了通用模板。然而，SSIM 经常以非生产性的方式使用，即作为敌对阵营或作为现实世界参与者信仰的代表。本文着重于技术官僚、决策主义和实用主义模型之间的流行区别，讨论了 SSIM 的优缺点。它认为，SSIM 不应像科学社会文献中经常做的那样，被理解为对立的阵营或行动者信仰的代表，而应被理解为理想类型和启发式。在此解释的基础上，本文提出了一种反思性工具的初步想法，现实世界的参与者可以使用它来评估他们对科学和社会的基本假设。就像科学社会文献中经常做的那样，被理解为对立的阵营或行动者信仰的代表，但作为理想类型和启发式。在此解释的基础上，本文提出了一种反思性工具的初步想法，现实世界的参与者可以使用它来评估他们对科学和社会的基本假设。就像科学社会文献中经常做的那样，被理解为对立的阵营或行动者信仰的代表，但作为理想类型和启发式。在此解释的基础上，本文提出了一种反思性工具的初步想法，现实世界的参与者可以使用它来评估他们对科学和社会的基本假设。