P. Weingart – författare

not lie in the conceptual distinctions but in the perceived functions of metaphors and whether in the concrete case they are judged positive or negative. The ongoing debates reflect these concerns quite clearly~ namely that metaphors are judged on the basis of supposed dangers they pose and opportunities they offer. These are the criteria of evaluation that are obviously dependent on the context in which the transfer of meaning occurs. Our fundamental concern is indeed the transfer itself~ its prospects and its limits. Looking at possible functions of metaphors is one approach to under­ standing and elucidating sentiments about them. The papers in this volume illustrate, by quite different examples, three basic functions of metaphors: illustrative, heuristic~ and constitutive. These functions rep­ resent different degrees of transfer of meaning. Metaphors are illustrative when they are used primarily as a literary device, to increase the power of conviction of an argument, for example. Although the difference between the illustrative and the heuristic function of metaphors is not great, it does exist: metaphors are used for heuristic purposes whenever "differences" of meaning are employed to open new perspectives and to gain new insights. In the case of "constitutive" metaphors they function to actually replace previous meanings by new ones. Sabine Maasen in her paper introduces the distinction between transfer and transforma­ tion.

When the socialist regime in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) was overthrown around the end of the eighties, beginning of the nineties, an overall transforma­ tion of whole societies started. Not only the political and the economic systems of these countries, but all societal sectors underwent deep changes. These changes presented opportunities, but they also spelled trouble. On one hand, getting rid of stifling political control and excessive bureaucratic regulation was something which most members of these societies desired. On the other, it be­ came apparent very soon that the necessary and long hoped-for rebuilding of the economy, education, health care, the mass media, and science, too, was strongly restricted by the scarcity of financial resources. After a short period, during which opportunities were energetically taken up in a spirit of hope, came a long and still lasting time of growing troubles and despondency. Only in a few of the CEE countries have some glimpses of hope become visible recently; and it re­ mains to be seen whether these signals are reliable. Until now, therefore, the transformation dynamics of all societal sectors in all of the CEE countries have primarily been troublesome. This is surely true for the post-socialist research systems. I The demise of the communist party's abso­ lute rule over society has allowed researchers the public expression and the pur­ suit of goals whose common denominator has been a greater self-regulation of scientific research according to its own criteria and logic.

not lie in the conceptual distinctions but in the perceived functions of metaphors and whether in the concrete case they are judged positive or negative. The ongoing debates reflect these concerns quite clearly~ namely that metaphors are judged on the basis of supposed dangers they pose and opportunities they offer. These are the criteria of evaluation that are obviously dependent on the context in which the transfer of meaning occurs. Our fundamental concern is indeed the transfer itself~ its prospects and its limits. Looking at possible functions of metaphors is one approach to under­ standing and elucidating sentiments about them. The papers in this volume illustrate, by quite different examples, three basic functions of metaphors: illustrative, heuristic~ and constitutive. These functions rep­ resent different degrees of transfer of meaning. Metaphors are illustrative when they are used primarily as a literary device, to increase the power of conviction of an argument, for example. Although the difference between the illustrative and the heuristic function of metaphors is not great, it does exist: metaphors are used for heuristic purposes whenever "differences" of meaning are employed to open new perspectives and to gain new insights. In the case of "constitutive" metaphors they function to actually replace previous meanings by new ones. Sabine Maasen in her paper introduces the distinction between transfer and transforma­ tion.

‘Scientific advice to politics’, the ‘nature of expertise’, and the ‘relation between experts, policy makers, and the public’ are variations of a topic that currently attracts the attention of social scientists, philosophers of science as well as practitioners in the public sphere and the media. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. The new significance of ‘participation’ and ‘accountability’ has motivated scholars to take a new look at the science – politics interface and to probe questions such as "What is new in the arrangement of scientific expertise and political decision-making?", "How can reliable knowledge be made useful for politics and society at large, and how can epistemically and ethically sound decisions be achieved without losing democratic legitimacy?", "How can the objective of democratization of expertise be achieved without compromising the quality and reliability of knowledge?" Scientific knowledge and the ‘experts’ that represent it no longer command the unquestioned authority and public trust that was once bestowed upon them, and yet, policy makers are more dependent on them than ever before. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance.

‘Scientific advice to politics’, the ‘nature of expertise’, and the ‘relation between experts, policy makers, and the public’ are variations of a topic that currently attracts the attention of social scientists, philosophers of science as well as practitioners in the public sphere and the media. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. The new significance of ‘participation’ and ‘accountability’ has motivated scholars to take a new look at the science – politics interface and to probe questions such as "What is new in the arrangement of scientific expertise and political decision-making?", "How can reliable knowledge be made useful for politics and society at large, and how can epistemically and ethically sound decisions be achieved without losing democratic legitimacy?", "How can the objective of democratization of expertise be achieved without compromising the quality and reliability of knowledge?" Scientific knowledge and the ‘experts’ that represent it no longer command the unquestioned authority and public trust that was once bestowed upon them, and yet, policy makers are more dependent on them than ever before. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance.

The interrelations of science and technology as an object of study seem to have drawn the attention of a number of disciplines: the history of both science and technology, sociology, economics and economic history, and even the philosophy of science. The question that comes to mind is whether the phenomenon itself is new or if advances in the disciplines involved account for this novel interest, or, in fact, if both are intercon­ nected. When the editors set out to plan this volume, their more or less explicit conviction was that the relationship of science and technology did reveal a new configuration and that the disciplines concerned with 1tS analysis failed at least in part to deal with the change because of conceptual and methodological preconceptions. To say this does not imply a verdict on the insufficiency of one and the superiority of any other one disciplinary approach. Rather, the situation is much more complex. In economics, for example, the interest in the relationship between science and technology is deeply influenced by the theoretical problem of accounting for the factors of economic growth. The primary concern is with technology and the problem is whether the market induces technological advances or whether they induce new demands that explain the subsequent diffusion of new technologies. Science is generally considered to be an exogenous factor not directly subject to market forces and, therefore, appears to be of no interest.

The interrelations of science and technology as an object of study seem to have drawn the attention of a number of disciplines: the history of both science and technology, sociology, economics and economic history, and even the philosophy of science. The question that comes to mind is whether the phenomenon itself is new or if advances in the disciplines involved account for this novel interest, or, in fact, if both are intercon­ nected. When the editors set out to plan this volume, their more or less explicit conviction was that the relationship of science and technology did reveal a new configuration and that the disciplines concerned with 1tS analysis failed at least in part to deal with the change because of conceptual and methodological preconceptions. To say this does not imply a verdict on the insufficiency of one and the superiority of any other one disciplinary approach. Rather, the situation is much more complex. In economics, for example, the interest in the relationship between science and technology is deeply influenced by the theoretical problem of accounting for the factors of economic growth. The primary concern is with technology and the problem is whether the market induces technological advances or whether they induce new demands that explain the subsequent diffusion of new technologies. Science is generally considered to be an exogenous factor not directly subject to market forces and, therefore, appears to be of no interest.

Edward Gibbon's allegation at the beginning of his Essay on the Study of Literature (1764) that the history of empires is that of the miseries of humankind whereas the history of the sciences is that of their splendour and happiness has for a long time been accepted by professional scientists and by historians of science alike. For its practitioner, the history of a discipline displayed above all the always difficult but fmally rewarding approach to a truth which was incorporated in the discipline in its actual fonn. Looking back, it was only too easy to distinguish those who erred and heretics in the field from the few forerunners of true science. On the one hand, the traditional history of science was told as a story of hero and hero worship, on the other hand it was, paradoxically enough, the constant attempt to remind the scientist whom he should better forget. It is not surprising at all therefore that the traditional history of science was a field of only minor interest for the practitioner of a distinct scientific diSCipline or specialty and at the same time a hardly challenging task for the professional historian. Nietzsche had already described the historian of science as someone who arrives late after harvest-time: it is somebody who is only a tolerated guest at the thanksgiving dinner of the scientific community .

Edward Gibbon's allegation at the beginning of his Essay on the Study of Literature (1764) that the history of empires is that of the miseries of humankind whereas the history of the sciences is that of their splendour and happiness has for a long time been accepted by professional scientists and by historians of science alike. For its practitioner, the history of a discipline displayed above all the always difficult but fmally rewarding approach to a truth which was incorporated in the discipline in its actual fonn. Looking back, it was only too easy to distinguish those who erred and heretics in the field from the few forerunners of true science. On the one hand, the traditional history of science was told as a story of hero and hero worship, on the other hand it was, paradoxically enough, the constant attempt to remind the scientist whom he should better forget. It is not surprising at all therefore that the traditional history of science was a field of only minor interest for the practitioner of a distinct scientific diSCipline or specialty and at the same time a hardly challenging task for the professional historian. Nietzsche had already described the historian of science as someone who arrives late after harvest-time: it is somebody who is only a tolerated guest at the thanksgiving dinner of the scientific community .

The extensive interaction between science/technology and the military has become increasingly apparent in the years since the Second World War. New institutional arrangements, new fields of study and research, new patterns of funding and support, new relations with industry, the academy and the state, and new professional roles have marked the sciences and technology; the military transformations have been equally important: new weapons systems of great complexity, new strategies and practices, new reliance on high technologies and advanced sciences, and extensive involvement in the funding of science and technology in the 'civilian' sector. While the literature in the social studies of science and technology has from time to time addressed these issues (especially from the historical perspective), the attention paid to the very extensive interactions and concommitant transformations has not been commensurate with the magnitude of the enterprise or changes undergone. These volumescontribute both reports of new research and stimulating additional study.Volume 12/1 contains Part I: War and the restructuring of physics, and Part II: The military and technological development.Volume 12/2 contains Part III: Transformation of industry and medicine, Part IV: Nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and Part V: R&D: military, industry and the academy.

When the socialist regime in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) was overthrown around the end of the eighties, beginning of the nineties, an overall transforma­ tion of whole societies started. Not only the political and the economic systems of these countries, but all societal sectors underwent deep changes. These changes presented opportunities, but they also spelled trouble. On one hand, getting rid of stifling political control and excessive bureaucratic regulation was something which most members of these societies desired. On the other, it be­ came apparent very soon that the necessary and long hoped-for rebuilding of the economy, education, health care, the mass media, and science, too, was strongly restricted by the scarcity of financial resources. After a short period, during which opportunities were energetically taken up in a spirit of hope, came a long and still lasting time of growing troubles and despondency. Only in a few of the CEE countries have some glimpses of hope become visible recently; and it re­ mains to be seen whether these signals are reliable. Until now, therefore, the transformation dynamics of all societal sectors in all of the CEE countries have primarily been troublesome. This is surely true for the post-socialist research systems. I The demise of the communist party's abso­ lute rule over society has allowed researchers the public expression and the pur­ suit of goals whose common denominator has been a greater self-regulation of scientific research according to its own criteria and logic.

The extensive interaction between science/technology and the military has become increasingly apparent in the years since the Second World War. New institutional arrangements, new fields of study and research, new patterns of funding and support, new relations with industry, the academy and the state, and new professional roles have marked the sciences and technology; the military transformations have been equally important: new weapons systems of great complexity, new strategies and practices, new reliance on high technologies and advanced sciences, and extensive involvement in the funding of science and technology in the 'civilian' sector. While the literature in the social studies of science and technology has from time to time addressed these issues (especially from the historical perspective), the attention paid to the very extensive interactions and concommitant transformations has not been commensurate with the magnitude of the enterprise or changes undergone. These volumescontribute both reports of new research and stimulating additional study.Volume 12/1 contains Part I: War and the restructuring of physics, and Part II: The military and technological development.Volume 12/2 contains Part III: Transformation of industry and medicine, Part IV: Nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and Part V: R&D: military, industry and the academy.

Edward Gibbon''s allegation at the beginning of his Essay on the Study of Literature (1764) that the history of empires is that of the miseries of humankind whereas the history of the sciences is that of their splendour and happiness has for a long time been accepted by professional scientists and by historians of science alike. For its practitioner, the history of a discipline displayed above all the always difficult but fmally rewarding approach to a truth which was incorporated in the discipline in its actual fonn. Looking back, it was only too easy to distinguish those who erred and heretics in the field from the few forerunners of true science. On the one hand, the traditional history of science was told as a story of hero and hero worship, on the other hand it was, paradoxically enough, the constant attempt to remind the scientist whom he should better forget. It is not surprising at all therefore that the traditional history of science was a field of only minor interest for the practitioner of a distinct scientific diSCipline or specialty and at the same time a hardly challenging task for the professional historian. Nietzsche had already described the historian of science as someone who arrives late after harvest-time: it is somebody who is only a tolerated guest at the thanksgiving dinner of the scientific community .

The interrelations of science and technology as an object of study seem to have drawn the attention of a number of disciplines: the history of both science and technology, sociology, economics and economic history, and even the philosophy of science. The question that comes to mind is whether the phenomenon itself is new or if advances in the disciplines involved account for this novel interest, or, in fact, if both are intercon­ nected. When the editors set out to plan this volume, their more or less explicit conviction was that the relationship of science and technology did reveal a new configuration and that the disciplines concerned with 1tS analysis failed at least in part to deal with the change because of conceptual and methodological preconceptions. To say this does not imply a verdict on the insufficiency of one and the superiority of any other one disciplinary approach. Rather, the situation is much more complex. In economics, for example, the interest in the relationship between science and technology is deeply influenced by the theoretical problem of accounting for the factors of economic growth. The primary concern is with technology and the problem is whether the market induces technological advances or whether they induce new demands that explain the subsequent diffusion of new technologies. Science is generally considered to be an exogenous factor not directly subject to market forces and, therefore, appears to be of no interest.

not lie in the conceptual distinctions but in the perceived functions of metaphors and whether in the concrete case they are judged positive or negative. The ongoing debates reflect these concerns quite clearly~ namely that metaphors are judged on the basis of supposed dangers they pose and opportunities they offer. These are the criteria of evaluation that are obviously dependent on the context in which the transfer of meaning occurs. Our fundamental concern is indeed the transfer itself~ its prospects and its limits. Looking at possible functions of metaphors is one approach to under­ standing and elucidating sentiments about them. The papers in this volume illustrate, by quite different examples, three basic functions of metaphors: illustrative, heuristic~ and constitutive. These functions rep­ resent different degrees of transfer of meaning. Metaphors are illustrative when they are used primarily as a literary device, to increase the power of conviction of an argument, for example. Although the difference between the illustrative and the heuristic function of metaphors is not great, it does exist: metaphors are used for heuristic purposes whenever "differences" of meaning are employed to open new perspectives and to gain new insights. In the case of "constitutive" metaphors they function to actually replace previous meanings by new ones. Sabine Maasen in her paper introduces the distinction between transfer and transforma­ tion.

When the socialist regime in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) was overthrown around the end of the eighties, beginning of the nineties, an overall transforma­ tion of whole societies started. Not only the political and the economic systems of these countries, but all societal sectors underwent deep changes. These changes presented opportunities, but they also spelled trouble. On one hand, getting rid of stifling political control and excessive bureaucratic regulation was something which most members of these societies desired. On the other, it be­ came apparent very soon that the necessary and long hoped-for rebuilding of the economy, education, health care, the mass media, and science, too, was strongly restricted by the scarcity of financial resources. After a short period, during which opportunities were energetically taken up in a spirit of hope, came a long and still lasting time of growing troubles and despondency. Only in a few of the CEE countries have some glimpses of hope become visible recently; and it re­ mains to be seen whether these signals are reliable. Until now, therefore, the transformation dynamics of all societal sectors in all of the CEE countries have primarily been troublesome. This is surely true for the post-socialist research systems. I The demise of the communist party''s abso­ lute rule over society has allowed researchers the public expression and the pur­ suit of goals whose common denominator has been a greater self-regulation of scientific research according to its own criteria and logic.