







The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) annually awards the John Desmond Bernal Prize to one or more individuals who have made distinguished contributions to the field of Science and Technology Studies. Past winners have included founders of the field, along with outstanding scholars who have devoted their careers to understanding the social dimensions of science and technology. This article is the revised text of the 2025 Bernal Lecture by Paul Edwards.
The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, Second Edition
“In an age in which the inexhaustible power of scientific technology makes all things possible, it remains to be seen where we will draw the line, where we will be able to say, here are possibilities that wisdom suggest we avoid.” First published to great acclaim in 1988, Langdon Winner’s groundbreaking exploration of the political, social, and philosophical implications of technology is timelier than ever. He demonstrates that choices about the kinds of technical systems we build and use are actually choices about who we want to be and what kind of world we want to create—technical decisions are political decisions, and they involve profound choices about power, liberty, order, and justice. A seminal text in the history and philosophy of science, this new edition includes a new chapter, preface, and postscript by the author.

The Current Crisis: What's Happening to Science in America
Technocracy References
References and Revisions “Should Scientists and Engineers Run Society?” References [1] Wikipedia: “Technocracy.” [2] Academic Paper: Gunnell, John G. "The technocratic image and the theory of technocracy." Technology and culture 23.3 (1982): 392-416. [3] Academic Paper: Oh, Kyunghwan. "A non-co...
The “Terrible Engine of Destruction” That Inspired Federal Science Funding
What can we learn about the relationship between science and the American public from the story of plagues of locusts in the 1870s?

Field Theory: AI as Social Science Question, Object & Tool
Uses of advanced artificial intelligence are changing how societies organize labor, govern, produce knowledge, and make meaning. In light of these developments, this essay argues that AI models, tools, and systems pose three interrelated imperatives for social science: they demand renewed attention to social theories of how technology, human experience, and social order are entangled; they require study as objects of inquiry in their own right; and they offer capabilities that may transform—or upend—the practice of social investigation itself. From Weber’s analysis of rationalization to Du Bois’s study of technology and inequality to contemporary scholarship on algorithmic governance, the essay examines what social science distinctively offers: the capacity to historicize the apparently unprecedented, to trace connections across scales, and to center those most affected by technological change. It identifies how algorithmic systems are remaking the distribution of opportunity and risk as a central task of social inquiry and asks what futures social science might help bring into being.
Governing by dismantling: tech oligarchy and the stifling of public data infrastructure
Published in Science as Culture (Ahead of Print, 2026)

Rebuilding the Architecture of Science
Science built the modern world. It’s time to rebuild the world of science.

An epistemology for democratic citizen science
Abstract. More than ever, humanity relies on robust scientific knowledge of the world and our place within it. Unfortunately, our contemporary view of scie

A Vision of Metascience
How does the culture of science change and improve? Many people have identified shortcomings in core social processes of science, such as peer review, how grants are awarded, how people are selected to become scientists, and so on. Yet despite often compelling criticisms, strong barriers inhibit widespread change in such social processes. The result is near stasis, and apathy about the prospects for improvement. People sometimes start new research institutions intended to do things differently; unfortunately such institutions are often changed more by the existing ecosystem than they change it. In this essay we sketch a vision of how the social processes of science may be rapidly improved. In this vision, metascience plays a key role: it deepens our understanding of which social processes best support discovery; that understanding can then help drive change. We introduce the notion of a metascience entrepreneur, a person seeking to achieve a scalable improvement in the social processes of science. We argue that: (1) metascience is an imaginative design practice, exploring an enormous design space for social processes; (2) that exploration aims to find new social processes which unlock latent potential for discovery; (3) decentralized change must be possible, so outsiders with superior ideas can't be blocked by established power centers; (4) ideally, change would align with what is best for science and for humanity, not merely what is fashionable, politically popular, or media-friendly; (5) the net result would be a far more structurally diverse set of environments for doing science; and (6) this would enable crucial types of work difficult or impossible within existing environments. For this vision to succeed metascience must develop and intertwine three elements: an imaginative design practice, an entrepreneurial discipline, and a research field. Overall, it is a vision in which metascience is an engine of improvement for the social processes and ultimately the culture of science.
Science: A New Golden Age
President Trump seeks to lay the foundations for a new Golden Age of American Innovation. The Trump administration is working to revitalize the national science enterprise, to secure U.S. leadership in emerging technologies against foreign rivals, and to ensure that all of America’s citizens will benefit from new scientific breakthroughs and technological transformations. The President understands the American story as one of ambition, discovery, and invention, of pioneers who forever seek new frontiers for exploration, particularly now in science and technology.

Science: A New Golden Age
President Trump seeks to lay the foundations for a new Golden Age of American Innovation. The Trump administration is working to revitalize the national science enterprise, to secure U.S. leadership in emerging technologies against foreign rivals, and to ensure that all of America’s citizens will benefit from new scientific breakthroughs and technological transformations. The President understands the American story as one of ambition, discovery, and invention, of pioneers who forever seek new frontiers for exploration, particularly now in science and technology.

The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other
The need for an integrated social constructivist approach towards the study of science and technology is outlined. Within such a programme both scientific facts and technological artefacts are to be understood as social constructs. Literature on the sociology of science, the science-technology relationship, and technology studies is reviewed. The empirical programme of relativism within the sociology of scientific knowledge and a recent study of the social construction of technological artefacts are combined to produce the new approach. The concepts of `interpretative flexibility' and `closure mechanism', and the notion of `social group' are developed and illustrated by reference to a study of solar physics and a study of the development of the bicycle. The paper concludes by setting out some of the terrain to be explored in future studies.

Reality Blind - Vol. 1
Integrating the Systems Science Underpinning Our Collective Futures
Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it
Loren K. Mell Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oran…

I read through this, and it's remarkably autocratic, almost Soviet-style vision for science in the United States.
OSTP Director Releases Landmark Report and Recommendations for Renewing American Scientific Discovery
www.whitehouse.govRemarkable how over a decade ago @michaelnielsen.bsky.social pointed the way towards solving long standing issues plaguing science to this day (issues that are all the more relevant in the age of AI mediated science)
Ronen Tamari
This is why @atproto.science is so relevant rn This compilation of essays indicates that scientists are most frustrated by insufficient “community tools and resources... Essential infrastructure for sharing, maintaining and building on existing work and data is also badly underdeveloped." >