top of page

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

NEW SCIENCE SOCIOLOGY: A NEW ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

 

HOMEOCSS sits on the theory of the new sociology of sciences. The latter initially studied communication and information between science and society and was inspired at the beginning of Robert Merton, making scientific knowledge an object beyond the sociological analysis. Merton's flagship article, "The Normative Structure of Science" (Merton, 1973), has also expressed the inability of sociology to account for the nature and content of scientific knowledge. The reason was simple: "the influence that society, culture, politics, or ideology can exert on the mechanisms for the development of scientific knowledge can not withstand in the long run the empirical tests and the reality of nature ".

However, in 1970, a renewal took place, notably through the work of Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, 1962), confronted through the strong program of David Bloor (Bloor, 1976), "the challenge being to give back to sociology the right to invest the field of scientific knowledge and to challenge to philosophy and epistemology their monopoly on the analysis of scientific knowledge and scholarly knowledge ". A new sociology of science was then established with Callon and Latour (Callon & Latour, 1979) based on Bloor's strong program: "science far from being an autonomous activity governed by its own laws is determined in its products. same, by social factors ". Researchers specializing in information science and science communication then seized on this new vision.

Bloor with his anti-Mertonian position wanted to re-establish a continuity between the sociology of science and the sociology of knowledge. It is defined above all against a philosophical position schematically characterized by situating science and its development on a plane that puts it beyond the reach of any determination other than its own rationality.

This new sociology of science has tried to show, on the contrary, that "the theory finally accepted by the scientific community after a controversy is very often the one defended by those who hold the dominant social and political positions. the idea that the social and cultural context determines the content of scientific theories Such a relativistic version of the sociology of science, even some less radical versions, has of course not been without controversy.

HOMEOCSS, beyond the controversy over this new theory, will try to define whether dominant social and political positions influence the communication of science, particularly within this controversy. This is why the social and cultural context will be taken into account.

 

A CASE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND THEIR CARTOGRAPHIES

 

HOMEOCSS will study a socio-scientific controversy as a case study of communication between science and society leading to the realization of a cartography of the controversy.

The controversy, as indicated by Fabiani (Fabiani, 2007), is indeed a real situation of communication to several actors between science and society: "in this indefinite debate on the norms of exchange and the control of its regularity, appears that the instance of the public is always presupposed, at least implicitly, by the exchange of arguments: it is never a simple game with two actors, even when the third party that constitutes the hearing is not not physically present. It is always a question of creating the conditions allowing to take to witness, even to constitute in resource the public of a debate. This audience can be virtual, or represent posterity or universality.

The controversy seems to be for many authors, a place of compulsory debate structuring the knowledge. If there is a truth, Bourdieu tells us (Bourdieu, 1981), "it is that the truth is a stake of struggles: it makes then the symbolic confrontation, the unique norm of the history of the knowledges". Controversies are "effervescent moments", Durkheim tells us (Durkheim, 1900), and "are opportunities for their social actors to question certain power relations and beliefs previously instituted, to redistribute between their size and their position. to be able, and to invent new organizational and technical devices to constrain their future relations differently ". Hence the interest of analyzing these controversies, as indicated by Bloor (Bloor, 1976), by following "symmetrically and impartially the actors in their fabrication and legitimization of statements, to do so in a non-teleological manner and by taking all equally seriously. " The controversy changes form as soon as the utterances circulate in other arenas. "Then we come out of the scholarly controversy to enter the framework of public controversy, controversy and quarrel," says Lilti (Lilti, 2007). But in any case it aims, as Pestre (Pestre, 2007) affirms, to "an axiological neutrality vis-à-vis the actors and their values".

"Some scientific controversies will pierce the social sphere and become part of it through the most frequent media communication tools.It is also often the scientists themselves, called experts, who will launch a debate in the public then belonged only to a sphere of elites "(Chavot & Masseran, 2017). "The scientific controversy thus becomes public and takes the name of socio-scientific controversy, social and political controversy around techno-scientific issues and objects" (Lilti, 2007).

"Socio-scientific controversies being debated can be more or less controversial in the scientific and societal sphere, but they all have a real social stake involving different actors: experts, the public, the media ... They generate debates articulating knowledge of science, knowledge about science, and ethical and political considerations (Urgelli, 2013) It is not only rational knowledge that is at stake here, but a system of representations-knowledge ". Social representations are generated and structured, as Moscovici (Moscovici, 2013) points out, by "the conversations and the media treatments that constitute our main kind of communication". "The actors involved therefore mobilize representations, values, interests that clash and are the subject of debate and media treatment" (Albe, 2006).

 

Since the 1970s, "socio-scientific controversies are studied in order to understand their cognitive issues but also to better understand research" (Jurdant, 2009). They have also been studied to define the "central role of communication in the emergence, deployment and stabilization of controversies" (Baduart & Mabi, 2015). "The analysis in a more educational dimension has also made it possible to update the discursive processes and social roles of students in discussion groups on a controversy" (Albe, 2006, Simmoneaux & Gardez, 2011).

 

In order to analyze a socio-scientific controversy, it is interesting to carry out a mapping, just as Bruno Latour was able to propose it through the European project of 2009 financed by the European commission, MACOSPOL, for which 8 European countries participated (MACOSPOL, 2009). Mapping a controversy, as the authors of this European project explain to us, "is not to look at it in an ideal of perfect objectivity but to adapt a second-rate objectivity that is to say to present the whole positions: to be objective is not to take the position of expert, but that of cartographer which implies to take seriously also marginal elements. To map a controversy is therefore to list the positions present by describing for each of them by whom they are carried (scientists, industrialists, NGOs ...) and with what arguments. The ultimate goal is to help the citizen to form an opinion on these controversial issues. We can not trust the experts to decide them because opinion doubts more and more experts and authorities in general.

HOMEOCSS aims to link in analysis for the first time representations and controversy. It will try to define how the representations of the different actors of the controversy can orient their paradigmatic positioning within the controversy. This is why conceptual maps on the representations of the various actors will then allow to enter into the analysis and the construction of a cartography of the controversy.

The analysis of representations will be based on the sciences of education and the information and communication sciences that come together to define the social representations of an individual as the product of three components: the values, the practices and the knowledge / knowledge that structures it (Moscovici 2013, Clément 2006). It is not defined, however, how important each of these components is to the representations of an individual. However, the sciences of education seem to attach greater importance to the impact of knowledge on representations, whereas the information and communication sciences seem to give equal importance to its components. HOMEOCSS will try to shed light on it.

The analysis of the influences between each actor of the controversy will be able to rely as for it, on the new concept of circulation of knowledge defined by Yves Jeanneret (Jeanneret, 2008): "the Triviality". The circulation of knowledge in society takes place in the form of "cultural beings", that is to say, ideas and objects (our knowledge, our values, our political categories, our aesthetic experiences) that can not be transmit in their "journey through the intersections of social life", without metamorphosing, without producing new, without taking care of value. It is this phenomenon that Yves Jeanneret calls "Trivialité". "Cultural beings thus come from social processes, it is the" complexes "constituted of objects, texts and associated representations that spread through society and evolve with time, the environments in which they are born, develop or fit. " Acts of communication are necessary according to this concept, to the appropriation of cultural beings and their social existence. HOMEOCSS will therefore try to make a link between the representations of the actors of the controversy, the circulation of the controversial knowledge produced and their appropriations, leading each individual to a paradigmatic position in the face of this controversy.

​

STUDY CASE: HOMEOPATHY, SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY IN THE SOCIETAL SPHERE

 

CONTROVERSE AROUND SCIENTIFICITY:

 

HOMEOCSS will focus on a particular case study of science communication: homeopathy as an object of societal controversy. This object of study has been and still is very controversial within the academic and scientific sphere. Indeed, by its history, homeopathy has always oscillated between challenge and integration (Faure, 2002). Homeopathy was born between the 18th and 19th centuries under the leadership of the German physician Hahnemann. From the first half of the 19th century, the success of this alternative medicine has been controversial and limited. Homeopathy has developed mainly in Paris and the major provincial cities. At the time, homeopathic doctors could be ostracized from medical societies, sometimes accused of illegal practice of medicine. Access to training was limited and internal quarrels did not help. Hahnemann did not accept the questioning of his theory by his homeopathic colleagues. At the same time, traditional medicine has been very successful with the work of Pasteur and Koch. The real revival of the practice of homeopathy began in the 1930s to culminate in the 1970s. This comeback of homeopathy was around the ideas of two personalities: Vannier (1880-1963) and Nebel (1870-1954); the role of the pharmaceutical companies also seemed important in this renewal. Homeopathy has finally achieved success not in opposition to traditional medicine but rather by relying on it.

"Homeopathy is surrounded by mysticism and beliefs, which makes it less credible to some people and makes them successful with others, because homeopathy goes far beyond simple medical questions. elements of an era: in the 19th century, the liberal and utopian claim, in the 20th century, the use of industrial and advertising logic and in the 21st century the trade-offs between capitalist and ecological logic "(Bariety & Poulet, 1970).

Homeopathy is based on the principle of similarity, stated by Hahnemann in 1810: "In order to heal in a gentle, prompt, certain and lasting way, it is necessary to choose in each case of disease a drug, which can itself provoke a suffering similar to the one he must heal. Through a long interview with his patient, the homeopathic practitioner must identify the patient's illness with all its symptoms and suggest the drug that will best match the disease. To avoid the adverse effects of the drug, the second principle of homeopathy is infinitesimal dilution. The drug is prepared through a succession of dilutions to the hundredth of a given substance. For example, Sepia officinalis 9CH (Centésimale Hahnemanienne) is prepared from dry ink, diluted nine successive times to the hundredth, which is equivalent to a total dilution to the billionth of a billionth (10-18) ". Hahnemann made the indicted by his peers ("profiteer", "crook") On March 17, 1835, the Academy unanimously adopted the report of the commission.The new therapy is accused of "many shocking contradictions", "A lot of palpable absurdities" and the report states that "reason and experience are thus reunited to repel such a system from all the forces of intelligence" (Bariety & Poulet, 1970) .The scandal of the affair Benveniste, in the late 1980s and during the 1990s, splashed the immunologist Jacques Benveniste, a case that exalted dormant postures since the 1830s. e again condemned, in 2004, a "method devised 200 years ago, from non-scientific foundations". This case, which began with the publication of a series of articles in the journal Nature, allowed the analysis of the dynamics of the controversial process, "namely the succession of three phases of containment, deconfinement and reconfinement of the debate. "(Ragouet, 2014). Two arenas were then defined as at the heart of the controversy: the academic and media arenas.

From the year 2009 to the present day, homeopathy is taking on a new scientific momentum with Luc Montagnier's fundamental research (Montagnier et al., 2009, 2011, 2014) Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV, and its collaborators whose Prof. Marc Henry, chemist (Henry, 2016a, 2016b, 2017, Van Wassenhoven et al., 2017). Indeed, the latter make a link with the work of Benveniste and propose an explanatory theory to the high dilutions used in homeopathy (Montagnier et al., 2014). These proposals were then rejected by the Academy of Sciences and Luc Montagnier forced to go abroad to China to continue his work.

HOMEOCSS will try, beyond this ubiquitous controversy, to identify for the first time the impact that the communication of controversial data by scientific experts involved, can have on their career and reputation. It will also define the representations and motivations of the positioning of these scientific experts. At the same time, this project will analyze pharmaceutical laboratories from a new angle in order to define whether their communication issues remain limited, as it is often mentioned, to a financial profitability, or if other motivations condition their positioning.

​

DIFFERENCE IN THE INVOLVEMENT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENS IN THE CONTROVERSY AND FACILITATION OF ACCESS TO HOMEOPATHY BY THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE:

 

HOMEOCSS will rely on data from European reports and European research on non-conventional medicine and more specifically on homeopathy, to analyze the positioning of citizens in this controversy. Indeed, the WHO in 2002 (WHO, 2002) differentiates traditional medicines from unconventional or complementary medicines that are used alongside allopathy in developed countries (Europe, North America). "Among the most common and best recognized complementary and alternative medicines at European level is homeopathy, and Europe has chosen the term" unconventional medicine (MNC) "in its official texts. , the European Parliament has proposed a first resolution to encourage the recognition of these unconventional medicines based on studies carried out on their efficacy and safety, then the Council of Europe adopted a new resolution on 11 June 1999 in order to facilitate the access of these European citizens to these medicines, he hopes that a better harmonization will be achieved between each state (European Commission, 1999) "(Leroy, 2014).

The CAMBRELLA research study funded by a European project (CAMBRELLA, 2012) and carried out from January 2010 to December 2012 in 39 European countries made it possible to draw up a report on the use and regulation of each alternative medicine including homeopathy. Through this survey, we note that the popularity of these therapies differs greatly depending on the country. Among the MNCs, homeopathy is considered the most used in Europe. Nevertheless, no European law has been passed for the official recognition of homeopathy, which results in a variability of practices. The new European legislation regulates the placing on the market of homeopathic medicines but does not standardize practices between countries.

The increase in sales of homeopathic medicines in Europe has been steady over the last fifteen years, according to the figures of the 2013 and 2011 European Coalition for Homoeopathic and Anthroposophical Medicinal Products (ECHAMP) report (ECHAMP, 2013). The sales market is dominated by three countries: France, Germany and Italy, which together account for 80% of the European medicines market and 40% of the European population. Poland only entered Europe in 2004 and is already in 8th place, as the report indicates. France is also the leading consumer country of homeopathic products (French using 20% ​​of world production). Poland comes in 11th position, as a consumer country, out of the 21 European countries studied.

The typical European citizen, according to these studies, who uses homeopathy, is essentially a woman who takes these therapies for herself or for her children and this mainly in a population with higher education.

​

According to the European Parliament, between 20% and 50% of citizens in the Member States use alternative medicine. The 2011 ECHAMP report (ECHAMP, 2011) estimates that 20-25% of Europeans use homeopathic medicines and 100 million Europeans trust homeopathy. Three-quarters of Europeans are aware of the existence of homeopathy and 29% of this group uses it for their health care.

 

Cultural differences: example of France and Poland (Leroy 2014, Feuillette 2015)

France is the leading consumer and exporter country According to the 2012 IPSO survey, 56% of French people use homeopathy to treat themselves, 36% of them on a regular basis.The 1999 IPSOS survey also indicated that users of Homeopathy does not add up with allopathic treatment since 87% of them use them alone 77% of French people would like homeopathy to be prescribed more often in first intention 90% of French want health professionals to be better 94% of them are trained and more competent with integrated training in the curriculum, 44% of French people feel very poorly informed about this treatment, and in France all recognized health practitioners can prescribe homeopathic treatments and are only those who can obtain an official diploma, the reimbursement policies for homeopathic medicines are continually reinstated. by the different governments, the majority of the reimbursements being made by complementary health.

Poland is the 11th consumer country and the 8th exporting country. Equivalent surveys show that only 50% of Polish inhabitants know about homeopathy and that 30% of Poles have already used it. Health professionals who can prescribe these drugs are private. Only recognized practitioners, as in France, can claim to obtain a specialty diploma in Homeopathy. The drugs are not supported and therefore not reimbursed. Without precise knowledge of the principles of homeopathy, the population says it remains skeptical about this medicine.

HOMEOCSS will take into account in this analysis the gender dimension in the light of previous research data, but also the cultural dimension of the country entering for the first time in a cartographic comparative analysis of the controversy between France and Poland. In addition, the general public will be studied from a new angle by integrating for the first time in the conceptual analysis and cartography, the young public pupils and students from 10 to 25 years.
 

​

Bibliographical references of the theoretical framework:

​

Albe V., « Procédés discursifs et rôles sociaux d’élèves en groupe de discussion sur une controverse socio-scientifique », Revue française de pédagogie, 2006, p. 103-118.

​

Badouard R. & Mabi C., « Controverses et débat public : nouvelles perspectives de recherche », Hermès, n°73, 2015, p 298.

​

Bariety M., Poulet J., « les débuts de l'homéopathie en France », histoire des sciences médicales, n°2, avril-juin 1970, p. 77-85.

​

Bloor D., Knowledge and social imagery, londres : routledge & kegan paul, 1976 ; rééd. chicago ; londres : university of chicago press, 1991.

​

Bourdieu P., « La représentation politique » [éléments pour une théorie du champ politique]. In: actes de la recherche en sciences sociales. Vol. 36-37, février/mars 1981. La représentation politique-1. p. 3-24.

​

CAMBRELLA-wp2, European research project on complementary and alternative medicine, ID 241951, 2012, p. 232

​

Chavot P. & Masseran A., « Controverse publique (sociologie des sciences) », Publictionnaire. Dictionnaire encyclopédique et critique des publics. Mis en ligne le 09 mars 2017. Accès : http://publictionnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/controverse-publique-sociologie-des-sciences/.

​

Clement P., “Didactic transposition and the KVP model: conceptions as interactions between scientific knowledge, values and social practices”.  Proceedings Summer School ESERA, IEC, Univ. Minho, Portugal, 2006, p. 9-18.

​

Commission européenne des affaires sociales, de la santé et de la famille, 11 juin 1999.

​

Durkheim E., « La sociologie et son domaine scientifique », version francophone d'un article publié en italien, « la sociologia e il suo domino scientifico » in rivista italiana di sociologia, 4, 1900, p. 127–148.

​

ECHAMP- the availability of homeopathic and anthroposophic medicinal products in the Eu, novembre 2013, p. 27.

​

ECHAMP- third edition of the availability of homeopathic and anthroposophic medicinal products in the Eu: facts and figures 2011, décembre 2011, p.12.

​

Fabiani J.-L., « Disputes, polémiques et controverses dans les mondes intellectuels ». Revue mil neuf cent, 2007, p. 45-60.

Faure O., « l'homéopathie entre contestation et intégration », actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2002/3 (n° 143), p. 88-96.

​

Feuillette C., Croyances et connaissances en homéopathie : enquêtes auprès de la population, Thèse de doctorat de pharmacie, France, 2015, p. 85.

​

Henry M., « Física y química de las altas diluciones », Revista Médica de Homeopatía 10 (2), 2017, P. 41-52.

​

Henry M., « Hofmeister series: The quantum mechanical viewpoint », Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 23, 2016a, p. 119-125.

​

Henry M., L'eau et la physique quantique, vers une révolution de la médecine. Dangles, 2016b.

​

Jeanneret Y., Penser la trivialité, vol 1, in collection Communication, médiation et construits sociaux, Hermès, 2008, p. 242.

​

Jurdant B., « Les controverses scientifiques pour comprendre la recherche, cycle de conférences », ENS Lyon, 2009.

​

Kuhn T.S., (trad. Laure meyer), La structure des révolutions scientifiques [« The structure of scientific revolutions »], paris, flammarion, coll. « champs / 791 », 2008 (1re éd. 1962), p. 284. 

​

Latour B. & Callon M., Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts, beverly hills, sage publications, 1979. (isbn 0803909934) ; rééd. Princeton, princeton university press, 1986.

​

Leroy E., « Pratique comparée de l’homéopathie en Europe et perspective », Thèse de doctorat de pharmacie, France, 2014,p. 149.

​

Lilti A., « Querelles et controverses », revue mil neuf cent, 2007, p. 13-28.

​

MACOSPOL, European project Mapping controversies on sciences for politics, Community research and development information service, ID217701, 2009, p. 12.

​

Merton K., « The normative structure of science » (1942) in storer n.w. (ed.), the sociology of science, chicago, 1973, university of chicago press, p. 267-278.

​

Montagnier L., Aïssa J., Del Giudice E., Lavallee C., Tedeschi A., Vitiello G.,  “Dna waves and water”. J. Phys. : conference series, 2011, p. 306(1).

​

Montagnier L., Aïssa J., Ferris S., Montagnier J.-L., Lavallée C., « Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial dna sequences » [archive] - - interdiscip sci comput life sci, 2009, 1: p. 81–90.

​

Montagnier L., Del Giudice E., Aïssa J., Lavallee C., Motschwillerd S., Capolupo A., Polcarig A., Romano P., Tedeschi A., Vitiello G., “Transduction of dna information through water and electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic biology and medicine”, 2014, 34(2), p.1-10.

​

Moscovici S., Le scandale de la pensée sociale, Editions de l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, EHESS, 2013, p. 316.

​

OMS-Stratégie de l’OMS pour la médecine traditionnelle pour 2002-2005, 2002, p. 74.

​

Pestre D., « l’analyse des controverses dans l’étude des sciences depuis 30 ans », revue mil neuf cent, 2007, p. 29-43.

​

Ragouet P., « les controverses scientifiques révélatrices de la nature différenciée des sciences ? Les enseignements de l'affaire benveniste », l'année sociologique 2014/1,64, p. 47-78.

​

Simonneaux L. & legardez A., Didactique des questions socialement vives. Répondre aux besoins de formation dans la société post-moderne. In Legardez, A. & Simonneaux, L. (Coord.), Développement durable et autres questions d’actualité, Educagri Editions, 2011.

​

Urgelli B., « Logique de communication et d’éducation dans l’enseignement de questions socio-scientifiques ». Actes du colloque Sociologie et didactique : vers une transgression des frontières, Haute Ecole pédagogique du canton de Vaud, 2013, p. 1-12.

​

Van Wassenhoven, M. ; Goyens, M. ;  Henry, M. ; Capieaux, E., Devos, P., « Nuclear Magnetic Resonance characterization of traditional homeopathically manufactured copper (Cuprum metallicum) and plant (Gelsemium sempervirens) medicines and controls », Homeopathy 106 (04), 2017, p.223-239.

bottom of page