About the Journal

The journal Dialogue: Science, Scientists, and Society – together with its associated web forum Confluence: Science, Scientists, and Society (Confluence (ias.ac.in)) – was initiated a few years ago by the Indian Academy of Sciences amidst and increasing realization that there was much about the so-called social contract of science that needed some critical re-thinking.

As stated by Singh & Joshi (2017), in a guest editorial in Current Science just before the launch of Dialogue:

“Over the past century, there have been many points of intersection between organized science, governmental policies and patronage, and societal benefits and concerns. In India, these linkages achieved prominence largely after independence. As in the West, the initial engagement of science, polity and society was marked by optimism, enthusiasm, and a belief that science would enable and empower governments to address various national problems, thereby enhancing the quality of life of the citizenry. In more recent decades, the euphoria has subsided, in part as science and society have both undergone rapid, far reaching changes. The darker side of even the well meaning application of at least some scientific technologies has also become more apparent, with greater appreciation of the longer-term detrimental effects of many scientific fixes to problems in areas ranging from food security to energy to disease. Another change is that scientific research has, on the whole, become more expensive, leading to a greater societal expectation of accountability. Moreover, with rapid technical specialization within science, both science and scientists are increasingly being seen to be self-referential and out of touch with societal needs and aspirations. One unfortunate outcome of these changes has been a burgeoning anti-science feeling in a subset of society, most dramatically so in USA, but also, to a lesser degree, in India.

Thus, it is imperative to have greater clarity on issues like what expectations do society and the government have from science and scientists, and vice versa. This is essentially what has been referred to as the ‘social contract of science’. In order to achieve this clarity, at least three major issues need to be acknowledged and addressed. First, what are the differences between how scientists, other academics and society view the nature and role of science? Second, how have changes in the way science is practised, evaluated and encouraged, and changes within society, affected perceptions about the social contract of science? Third, how can communication between scientists and society be enhanced, to generate better mutual understanding, so crucial to any rethinking of the social contract of science?”

This extended quote encapsulates the logic behind, and the domain of, the journal. While Dialogue is a regular academic journal, its sister enterprise Confluence is a more informal, though editorially moderated, forum for discussion and debate on issues within the same broad domain as Dialogue, but with slightly less formal expectations in terms of referencing etc.

Reference: Singh, M. and A. Joshi. 2017. Science, scientists, and society: renewing the dialogue (Guest Editorial). Current Science 113: 2055-2056. (http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/113/11/2055.pdf)