RESEARCH ARTICLE
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the
science of science upon China: Implications for
today’s quantitative studies of science
Yong Zhao1
, Jian Du2
, and Yishan Wu3
1Information Research Center, China Agricultural University, Peking, China
2National Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Peking, China
3Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development, Peking, China
Schlüsselwörter: China’s science of science, J. D. Bernal, quantitative studies of science, science of
Wissenschaft, social function of science
ABSTRAKT
John Desmond Bernal (1901–1970) was one of the most eminent scientists in molecular biology
and is also regarded as the founding father of the science of science. His book The social function
of science laid the theoretical foundations for the discipline. In diesem Artikel, we summarize four
chief characteristics of his ideas in the science of science: the sociohistorical perspective,
theoretical models, qualitative and quantitative approaches, and studies of science planning
and policy. China has constantly reformed its scientific and technological system based on
research evidence of the science of science. daher, we analyze the impact of Bernal’s
science-of-science thoughts on the development of China’s science of science, and discuss how
they might be usefully taken still further in quantitative studies of science.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
1.
EINFÜHRUNG
The science of science, literally meaning science connoisseurship or science studies (Kokowski,
2015) can be defined as the use of scientific methodology to study science itself. Zum Beispiel, eins
can study how research is done and where improvements can be made. The science of science
can also be considered as the self-consciousness of science.
Polish scholars were the first to recognize a need for a separate field concerned with science-of-
science problems (Walentynowicz, 1982). In 1925, the Polish sociologist Znaniecki introduced
the term naukoznawstwo (science of science or science studies) in his study Przedmiot i zadania
nauki o wiedzy (Subject and tasks of the science of knowledge). Ten years later M. Ossowska and
S. Ossowski wrote another article, entitled Nauka o nauce (The science of science) auf Polnisch, In
which they defined the scope and formulated the program of science-of-science research. Diese
authors identified three core disciplines that constitute the scientific study of science: epistemology
and philosophy of science, psychology of scientific creativity, and the anthropology or sociology
of science.
The emergence of the science of science, as a new scientific discipline, is generally associated
with J. D. Bernal’s book The social function of science first published in 1939 (Goldsmith &
Mackay, 1964). The book’s theme was summarized in its subtitle: “What science does and what
science could do.” In his later essay “Towards a science of science,” coauthored with Mackay,
Bernal took D. J. de Solla Price’s definition as a general indication of the discipline: “the history,
Keine offenen Zugänge
Tagebuch
Zitat: Zhao, Y., Von, J., & Wu, Y.
(2020). The impact of J. D. Bernal’s
thoughts in the science of science
upon China: Implications for today’s
quantitative studies of science.
Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3),
959–968. https://doi.org/10.1162/
qss_a_00064
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00064
Korrespondierender Autor:
Yong Zhao
zhaoyong@cau.edu.cn
Handling Editors:
Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols,
and Staša Milojević
Urheberrechte ©: © 2020 Yong Zhao, Jian Du,
and Yishan Wu. Published under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0) Lizenz.
Die MIT-Presse
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
philosophy, Soziologie, Psychologie, economics, political science and operations research (usw.)
of science, Technologie, and medicine (usw.).” He also identified some specific research subjects
in the science of science: statistical attacks, detailed study of critical cases, systems research,
experimental approaches, and classification. Meanwhile he separated the discipline into pure
and applied branches (Bernal & Mackay, 1966). Der erste, descriptive and analytic in nature, asks
“How do science and the scientist work?” and the second, normative and synthetic in nature, asks
“How can science be applied to the needs of human society?” Bernal considered that the science
of science must be a proper science with special characteristics. There must be observation, spec-
ulation, and experiment or operational research. Daher, unlike Polish researchers in the history,
philosophy and sociology of science, who approached science-of-science issues usually with a
humanistic methodology, Bernal brought measurement techniques from statistics to the analysis of
Wissenschaft (Price, 1964). He also pointed out emphatically that science is both affecting and being
affected by the social changes of its time. He thought that “this is a social and economic rather than
a philosophical inquiry” (Bernal, 1939).
Bernal is regarded as the founding father of the science of science (Price, 1964). Seit 1981, Zu
honor Bernal and his pioneering work in the science of science, the Society for Social Studies of
Wissenschaft (4S) awards the Bernal Prize annually to scholars who have made a distinguished contri-
bution to the field. Tatsächlich, the thoughts of many famous scholars can be traced back to the influ-
ence of, or inspiration by, Bernal. The list of such scholars includes the economist Christopher
Freeman; the historian and physicist Mintomo Yuasa; and the biochemist, historian, and sinologist
Joseph Needham. Insbesondere, Derek de Solla Price, who was the first recipient of the Bernal
Award, noted in his acceptance speech that his work in scientometrics1 was partly inspired by
Bernal. Außerdem, Eugene Garfield ascertained that Bernal also helped prepare his mind for
the sensitivity that led him to the field of scientific information retrieval and its milestone-like
byproduct the Science Citation Index (SCI) (Garfield, 2007).
Some previous studies introduced the academic career of Bernal and his contributions to the
world of science (Andrew, 2005; Muddiman, 2003; Sheehan, 2007). In diesem Artikel, we summarize
Bernal’s main thoughts in the science of science and discuss how they might be usefully taken still
further in quantitative studies of science. In the following sections, we consider the four chief
characteristics of Bernal’s thoughts on the science of science: the socio historical perspective,
theoretical models, qualitative and quantitative approaches, and studies of science planning
and policy. Dann, we will discuss the impact of Bernal’s science of science thoughts on the devel-
opment of the science of science in China.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF BERNAL’S THOUGHTS IN THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCE
2.1. Sociohistorical Perspective
Bernal viewed science as a social activity, integrally tied to the whole spectrum of other social
Aktivitäten: wirtschaftlich, cultural, philosophical, und politisch (Bernal, 1939, 1954). His monograph,
The social function of science, laid the theoretical foundations for the science of science
(Goldsmith & Mackay, 1964). In this book, Bernal examined how science was organized in
Britain and elsewhere; the efficiency of scientific research; science in education; science and
Krieg; and international science. These aspects were analyzed as quantitatively as possible with
1 Scientometrics, defined as the quantitative studies of science (Elkana, Lederberg, et al., 1978) or the “quan-
titative study of science, communication in science, and science policy” (Hess, 1997), has its roots in the
1950s and 1960s, and stems from the work of the historian of science Derek de Solla Price (z.B., Price, 1964,
1965) in parallel to the development of the Science Citation Indexes by Eugene Garfield (Garfield, 1955,
1963).
Quantitative Science Studies
960
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
the statistics and evidence available. He then went on to examine the ways in which science could
be improved: the training of the scientist; the reorganization of research; scientific communication;
the funding of science; the strategy of scientific advance; science in the service of man; Wissenschaft
and social transformation; and the social function of science. Many of the research topics of this
book are still focal to quantitative studies of science.
Later Bernal developed the historical analysis of science further in his multivolume work
Science in history (Bernal, 1954). He considered that “the progress of science has been anything
but uniform in time and place” and “periods of rapid advance have alternated with longer period of
stagnation and even of decay.” He listed different aspects of science and took science as an
institution, a method, a cumulative tradition of knowledge, a major factor in the maintenance
and development of production, and one of the most powerful influences molding beliefs and
attitudes to the universe and man.
In our opinion, Bernal’s conceptualization of science can provide the intellectual framework
for a more comprehensive description and understanding of the structure and dynamics of
Wissenschaft. Jedoch, the appropriate approach to integrate qualitative theories with quantitative
perspectives is a central question in quantitative studies of science (Leydesdorff, 1989). A true
science of science will have to be theoretically grounded and practically useful. It should allow
for repeatability, economy, mensuration, heuristics, and consilience (Wilson, 1998); this view is
also emphasized by scientometrician Henry Small (1998). Daher, some theoretical questions about
science-of-science issues, proposed by Bernal from a sociohistorical perspective, sollte sein
addressed in the quantitative studies of science, such as the shifting of the world’s science center,
the efficiency of scientific research, the interaction of science with instruments or technology, Und
the relationship between science and culture.
2.2. Theoretical Models
Theoretical models are the most potent instruments for scientific thinking. Börner, Boyack, et al.
(2012) defined a model of science as “a systematic description of an object or phenomenon that
shares important characteristics with its real-world counterpart and supports its detailed investiga-
tion.” Bernal’s work The social function of science has influenced many of the descriptive models
reflecting about science in a scientific manner (Garfield, 2007). Bernal saw science as a growing
pyramid or a branching tree, or as a set of raids by a guerrilla troop (Bernal, 1939); all of them being
excellent metaphors. Means of pushing the usefulness of such models further is provided as a
byproduct of the citation-index method of handling scientific literature—an activity that owes much
to the revolutionary suggestions made by Bernal for the solution of the information crisis (Price,
1964). The citations in publications form a network linking them all together in a complex fashion.
Nowadays, the analysis of citation networks has been an important tool for understanding science
dynamics in quantitative studies of science. Tatsächlich, the structure of The social function of science
reads like a what-to-be-modeled list (Ginda, Scharnhorst, & Börner, 2016). Examples are organiza-
tion (The existing organization of research in Britain), scientific practices (The efficiency of scientific
Forschung), scientific careers (The training of the scientist) or globalization (International science).
Models of science facilitate a theoretical and/or empirical understanding of the structure and
dynamics of science with predictive power, and they are validated according to the accuracy of
their predictions. In 2012, Springer published a book titled Models of science dynamics
(Scharnhorst, Börner, & van den Besselaar, 2012), which provided a review of major models of
Wissenschaft. This book discussed different science model types. Allgemein, descriptive models of
science can be found in the field of philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science,
and science and technology studies, while predictive models of science (computational and
Quantitative Science Studies
961
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
mathematical) are developed in scientometrics, bibliometrics, system dynamics, Physik, Und
Mathematik. Jedoch, for quantitative studies of science, in designing action (especially research
evaluation activities), a crucial task now involves the wise creation and use of clarifying descrip-
tors, which are very often expressed as quantities (Espeland & Stevens, 1998, 2008). In their ab-
sence, decision-making can wallow in a morass of incoherent data; but wise action must be aware
also that in the presence of quantities it is all too easy to take the model for the reality, and to solve
problems that are chosen for their modelable elegance rather than for their content (Ramirez,
Ravetz, et al., 2019). All evaluative scientometricians should keep Ramirez’s words in mind.
2.3. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
The social functions of science gathered a wide range of quantitative indicators as well as quali-
tative insights to argue for the systematic organization and the expanded utilization of scientific
research in society (Bernal, 1939). In the late 1950s, Bernal went on to make an important intel-
lectual contribution to the development of the science of science by arguing in a number of papers
for the adoption of qualitative as well as quantitative methodological approaches (Muddiman,
2003). His paper, published at the International Conference on Scientific Information (ICSI) held
in Washington DC in 1958, “The transmission of information, a user’s analysis,” argued cogently
for a “natural historical” approach to user studies that might “form a useful corrective to the
predominantly quantitative and mechanical character of the conference” (Bernal, 1959). It is clear
that Bernal favored methodologies that mix or combine both qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Later on, the quantitative measurement was systematically used in the basically
qualitative studies of science. Books such as Towards a metric of science (Elkana et al., 1978)
presented a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis of science. Jedoch, in recent
decades, quantitative studies and qualitative studies seem to go different ways in science studies.
Insbesondere, with the growing dominance of computational approaches, a “computational turn”
has been advocated by some scholars in the science of science.
It is indeed very important to emphasize that the computational methods in the science of
science should be accompanied by more thoroughgoing and focused qualitative investigations,
characteristic of the early humanistic phases of the science of science research (Kawalec, 2019). In
fact, to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative studies is also a grand challenge in the
science of science. Mixed-methods designs2, which seem to be the only adequate design for
studying and solving complex problems and even “wicked problems” (Churchman, 1967), würde
not be overemphasized for the future development of the science of science.
2.4. Studies of Science Planning and Policy
Bernal is the main contributor to the theories about the planning of science (Bukharin, Needham, &
Werskey, 2014). He considered that “perhaps a five- or ten-year scheme for the whole of science
and shorter schemes for individual sciences would be workable and provision would have to be
made for changes, as at any moment the important of new integrating discoveries might be such as
to demand a complete recasting of pre-existing schemes” (Bernal, 1939). He emphasized the
balance between fundamental research and applied research throughout any plan of scientific
Vorauszahlung, and pointed out that the first stage in planning the general direction of scientific advance
is a survey of existing knowledge and techniques in all departments of human life. Price (1964) sug-
gested that the new understanding would advance with all the certainty and application of a
2 Mixed-methods research is an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quan-
titative forms. Mixed-methods designs provide researchers, across research disciplines, with a rigorous ap-
proach to answering research questions (Aramo-Immonen, 2011).
Quantitative Science Studies
962
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
Wissenschaft, and if it did the way was clear for rational and informed planning to replace opinion and
expediency in the planning of science that Bernal and others foresaw as a necessity of modern civ-
ilization. Heute, driven by big data sources, the science of science would produce many more ex-
citing insights about the social processes that lead to scientific discovery. The planning of science
will be strongly supported by data-driven predictions in the science of science (Clauset, Larremore,
& Sinatra, 2017).
Anyone reading Bernal’s The social function of science today would immediately recognize it as
a book about science policy. Tatsächlich, science policy analysis has been a regular part of science
Studien, with journals such as Science and Public Policy (founded in 1974) and Research Policy
(founded in 1971). In der Zwischenzeit, there are many scholarly works building the link between the
collection of data for Science and Technology (S&T) indicators and the science policy for promoting
the growth of certain indicators, such as Handbook of quantitative studies of science and tech-
nology, edited by Van Raan (1988). Due to such duality, the science of science is neither “hard”
nor “soft” science; neither is it “natural” or “social” science (Holbrook, 1992). While the qualita-
tive analysis of science policy options may be regarded as a domain in social science, the analysis
von S&T indicators falls very definitely into the area of mathematical and statistical science. Zusamenfassend,
we hold that Bernal’s contributions in qualitative studies of science, such as his ideas concerning
science planning and science policy, deserve full attention by science studies scholars in general,
and by scholars in quantitative studies of science in particular.
IMPACTS OF BERNAL’S SCIENCE OF SCIENCE THOUGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
3.
CHINA’S SCIENCE OF SCIENCE
The development process of science of science in China was profoundly influenced by Bernal’s
thoughts about the science of science.
3.1. The Institutionalization of China’s Science of Science
To promote the science of science, Bernal encouraged the study of contemporary science as it
happens by getting academic posts for the science of science (Bernal & Mackay, 1966). In
China, we witnessed an institutionalization process for the science of science, including “getting
academic posts for it.” The most important milestone in the early formation of science of science as
a discipline in China was the establishment of the Chinese Association for Science of Science and
S&T Policy Research (CASSSP) In 1982. So far CASSSP has 4,464 registered members, einschließlich
scholars, PhD students, research managers, and government administrators for STI affairs. In recent
Jahre, there have been more than a thousand participants in the annual academic conference held
by CASSSP. Following Bernal’s understanding of the discipline, CASSSP emphasizes both pure
and applied research in the science of science because the pure research and applied research
often feed into each other. At present, CASSSP consists of 20 special interest groups (SIGs) In
different research fields of the science of science, including SIGs on Theory of the Science of
Science and Discipline Construction, S&T Policy, Technological Innovation, Scientometrics
and Informetrics, S&T Evaluation, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Technology Foresight,
Policy Simulation, Human Resources for S&T, Science Communication and Popularization,
Science and Economics, Public Management, Sociology of Science, S&T Project Management,
Intellectual Property Policy, Commercialization of S&T Achievements, Regional Innovation,
S&T Infrastructure, Science and Culture, and Civil-military Integration. In der Zwischenzeit, there are three
Chinese academic journals in the science of science sponsored by CASSSP, including Science
Research Management (founded in 1980), Science of Science and Management of S&T (founded
In 1980), and Studies in Science of Science (founded in 1983). Außerdem, science of science
Quantitative Science Studies
963
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
courses have been offered at some Chinese universities since the 1980s. In the early 21st century,
the Ministry of Education (MoE) of China issued a list of 100 must-read books for university
students, including the translated Chinese version of The social function of science. In the mid-
1990S, the programs for Masters’ and PhD degrees in Science of Science and Management of
S&T was approved by China’s Academic Degree Commission of the State Council (ADCSC).
3.2. Research in China’s Science of Science
Since the 1950s, many of Bernal’s classic works have been translated and published in Chinese,
which has a lasting promotion effect on the research in science of science. The list of such classic
pieces include: The social function of science (translated and published in 1950), Towards a
science of science (translated and published in 1980), Science in history (translated and published
In 1983), and After twenty-five years (translated and published in 1985). Engels and science was
translated in 2017 and distributed among the science of science scholars. It is noteworthy that the
Chinese edition of The social function of science has been cited 1,938 times by Chinese authors
alone in duxiu.com (16 Februar 2020), an index of Chinese books and articles, while Google
Scholar indicates that the book has been cited 1,893 times by authors from the whole world.
Generally speaking, the science of science in China is organized into pure and applied
branches as proposed by Bernal. The pure branch, aiming to facilitate scientific theories and
methodologies for improved understanding of how science and the scientists work, mainly
includes sociology of science and scientometrics. Studies on the sociology of science and sciento-
metrics in China began in this same period, but then they went different ways in science studies.
The theories and research traditions of famous scholars, such as John Desmond Bernal, Derek de
Solla Price, Robert K. Merton, and Thomas S. Kuhn, are introduced and studied by Chinese
scholars in the sociology of science, while scientometric research has been dominated by
computational methods and information technology. In den vergangenen Jahren, the methodological
approach that linked scientometric methods with theoretical considerations is used for studying
and solving complex problems in China, such as the gender gap in science (Ma, Zhao, et al.,
2018), transnational academic mobility (Li & Tang, 2019), and research integrity (Tang, 2019).
The applied branch, im Gegenzug, uses scientific theories and methodologies to develop strategies for
using science of science to meet the needs of human society. Such explorations include studies of
science policy and management, legal study of science, and study of science education. Since the
1990S, studies on technological innovation and STI policy have been emphasized in China’s
science of science community. In den vergangenen Jahren, China’s leaders have been emphasizing that the
strategy of innovation-driven development should be fully implemented, and that innovation has
become the primary engine of social and economic development. The country has constantly re-
formed its scientific and technological system based on research evidence of the science of science.
Gesamt, in the last 40 Jahre, Bernal’s thoughts on science of science have been absorbed and
developed in China. In der Zwischenzeit, China’s science of science research has been evolving from the
relatively general study to its more applied fields (such as innovation policy, science ethics, Und
science education), from the qualitative analysis to the mixed (qualitative and quantitative) Analyse,
and from the study on general social functions of science to the study of more specific economic
functions and strategic functions of science.
3.3. Prominent Chinese Scholars in the Science of Science
Many Chinese scholars were enthralled by the science of science as proposed by Bernal. Due
to space limitation, here we mention just two representative Chinese scholars in the science of
Quantitative Science Studies
964
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
Wissenschaft. Hsue-shen Tsien (1911–2009), a prominent Chinese scientist, regarded as China’s
Father of Missiles, took the lead to initiate science of science in China (Liu, 2012) and pub-
lished the first Chinese paper on the science of science (Tsien, 1979). Tsien considered that the
science of science belongs to the social sciences, provides the theoretical foundation of the
scientific system, and is situated at the Technological Sciences ( Ji Shu Ke Xue)3 level in the
social science system. The science of science takes the whole of scientific knowledge as its
research object, including three branches: the S&T system, Wissenschaftliche Kapazität, and the political
science of science.
Hongzhou Zhao (1941–1997), one of the pioneers of the science of science as well as
scientometrics in China, explored the question of science capacity. His monograph Ke Xue
Neng Li Xue Yin Lun (Introduction to the study of science capacity) was published in 1984.
This study provided a systematic introduction to the elements of science capacities in a society
and their interactions, and discussed the social function of groups of scientists, library and
information systems, experimental technology systems, labor structure, and science education.
In der Zwischenzeit, he further studied the shifting of the world’s center of science as proposed by
Bernal by using qualitative and quantitative analysis (Zhao & Jiang, 1985).
On the policy side, almost all the major designers of China’s reform of science and tech-
nology system during the 1980s were the scholar-officials who were devotees to the science of
science as proposed by Bernal. Their work not only laid the theoretical foundations of China’s
science of science but also promoted the formation and implementation of early S&T policies
in China. Zum Beispiel, the establishment of the Youth Scientist Program by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) was legitimated by Hongzhou Zhao’s research
evidence of scientists’ social ages (Zhao & Jiang, 1986).
3.4. S&T Planning in China Based on Research Evidence of the Science of Science
Bernal’s conception of science planning has been fully accepted and frequently emphasized
in China. The Chinese government has made unremitting efforts to make and implement the
national S&T plans since the late 1950s. We mention here that China has witnessed phenom-
enal progress in science, Technologie, and innovation in the last two decades as an integral part
of the “Chinese Miracle,” Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the Chairman of the Kuhn Foundation,
summed up the six factors contributing to the Chinese Miracle (Kuhn, 2019).
One of the key factors is that the Chinese government’s policies and objectives are long-
Begriff, generally with long-, medium-, and short-term goals, and policies and measures to
achieve these goals are constantly adjusted and revised according to the situation (Kuhn,
2019). This long-term orientation is also reflected in science, Technologie, and innovation
(STI) plans in China. To better make STI plans at various levels (National, regional, urban, cor-
porate, usw.), one needs sophisticated technology forecasting, foresight, prediction, and assess-
ment, which are all attractive “battlefields” for ambitious scientometricians.
In den vergangenen Jahren, the continuation of technology foresight activities has nurtured a “foresight
Kultur,” which provides a stable, favorable, and “soft” environment for S&T planning. Seit
2013, large-scale technology foresight activity, led by the Chinese government, has been
conducted by the Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development (CASTED), A
3 Hsue-shen Tsien (1979, 1983) considered that the whole system of science should be divided into natural
Wissenschaft, social science, systems science, science of thinking, science of human bodies, and mathematical
Wissenschaft. Each scientific area should also be divided into three levels, named basic sciences, technological
Wissenschaften, and engineering technology.
Quantitative Science Studies
965
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
think-tank under the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). This activity is usually imple-
mented in three steps (technology evaluation, foresight survey, and key technology selection), Und
it adopts a combined qualitative and quantitative method using large-scale Delphi surveys and bib-
liometric analysis (Li, Chen, & Kong, 2016). Further research as part of the exercise includes the key
technology road-mapping, future scenarios making, and cross-impact and technology cluster anal-
yses. The technology gap between China and the global advanced level has also been analyzed in
terms of both the overall S&T development status and some specific S&T domains, in order to make
objective judgement about the true picture of science and technology in China. Such technology
foresight exercises can make China’s S&T planning more precise and accurate, because they
helped decision-makers to understand future trends in S&T and to make policy responses promptly.
4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Bernal was one of the founders of empirical research on science and the data-based study of
organizational networks, material embodiments, and operational mechanisms of contemporary sci-
enz. The four chief characteristics of his thoughts on the science of science were analyzed in this
Artikel: sociohistorical perspective, theoretical models, qualitative and quantitative approaches,
and studies of science planning and policy. Historical experience has proved that adhering to
Bernal’s science of science ideas is the driving force for the development of the science of science
in China, while research on the science of science has deeply impacted China’s science, technol-
Ogy, and innovation (STI) Verfahren, partly because many STI policy designers and STI activity man-
gers are influenced by the science of science in general, and by Bernal’s ideas in particular.
Leider, it seems that many contemporary scholars in the science of science have failed to rec-
ognize the precious legacy of Bernal. Among 61 publications we retrieved on 16 September 2019
from the Web of Science (WoS) whose titles contain “science of science” and which really mean
“science of science” in the sense of “science studies,” only eight cited any work by Bernal, Die
founding father of the science of science. Außerdem, just two scholars among the authors of
the eight publications examined and evaluated Bernal’s works. One is Helena Sheehan, a historian
of science at Dublin City University, who introduced Bernal’s contributions to philosophy, poli-
Tics, and the science of science (Sheehan, 2007). The other is Eugene Garfield, who studied the
impact of Bernal’s book The social function of science by using HistCite software (Garfield, 2009).
Egal, whether this is willful neglect or unintentional omission, such unfair or unwise behavior
by the authors of the other 53 publications is detrimental to the science of science itself.
Kürzlich, two important literature reviews on the science of science were published in Physics
Reports and Science, jeweils: “The science of science: From the perspective of complex
systems” (Zeng, Shen, et al., 2017) and “Science of science” (Fortunato, Bergstrom, et al.,
2018). The common characteristic of these two different literature reviews is that the authors sen-
sitively grasp the new characteristics and trends of contemporary science itself. Many of their ideas
can be traced back to Bernal’s thoughts, zum Beispiel, the ideas that science can be described as a
Komplex, self-organizing, and evolving network of scholars, Projekte, Papiere, und Ideen; und das
contemporary science is a dynamical system of undertakings driven by complex interactions
among social structures, knowledge representations, and the natural world (Fortunato et al.,
2018). Together with the development of science itself, the science of science has become an
important research field. It seeks to understand, quantify and predict scientific research and the
resulting outcomes (Zeng et al., 2017).
Heute, the new scientometric analysis delineates important changes in science. It seems to
us that scientometric analysis increasingly calls for a theoretical underpinning in order to ex-
plain and understand the mechanism behind the observed dynamics. Bernal’s main ideas,
Quantitative Science Studies
966
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
especially his theoretical explorations, might be usefully taken still further in quantitative
studies of science.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully thank Loet Leydesdorff and Staša Milojevic(cid:1) for their constructive
comments and recommendations.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This work was financially supported by the Ministry of Education in China Project of Humanities
and Social Sciences (18YJC870027).
VERWEISE
Andrew, B. (2005). J. D. Bernal: The sage of science. London:
Oxford University Press.
Aramo-Immonen, H. (2011). Mixed methods research design. In D.
Miltiadis, D. R. Lytras, R. D. Tennyson et al. (Hrsg.) Information
Systeme, e-learning, and knowledge management research. 4th
World Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2011,
Mykonos, Greece, September 21–23, 2011.
Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. London: Routledge.
Bernal, J. D. (1954). History in science. London: C. A. Watt.
Bernal, J. D. (1959). The transmission of scientific information: A
user’s analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Scientific Information, Washington, Gleichstrom, November 16–21,
1958 (S. 77–95). Washington, Gleichstrom: National Academy of
Sciences and National Research Council.
Bernal, J. D. & Mackay, A. L. (1966). Towards a science of science.
Organon, 3, 9–17.
Börner, K., Boyack, K., Milojevic, S., & Morris, S. (2012). An intro-
duction to modeling science: Basic model types, key definitions,
and a general framework for the comparison of process models.
In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, and P. van den Besselaar (Hrsg.)
Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity
theory and information sciences. London: Springer.
Bukharin, N. ICH., Needham, J., & Werskey, P. G. (2014). Science at the
cross roads: Papers from the Second International Congress of the
History and Technology 1931. London: Routledge Revivals.
Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science,
14(4), 141–146.
Clauset, A., Larremore, D. B., & Sinatra, R. (2017). Data-driven pre-
dictions in the science of science. Wissenschaft, 355(6324), 477–480.
Elkana, Y., Lederberg, J., Merton, R., Thackray, A., & Zuckerman, H.
(Hrsg.). (1978). Toward a metric of science: The advent of science
indicators. New York: Wiley.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a
social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quantifica-
tion. European Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 401–436.
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C.T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., …
Barabási, A.-L. (2018). Science of science. Wissenschaft, 359(6379).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in
documentation through association of ideas. Wissenschaft, 122(3159),
108–111.
Garfield, E. (1963). Citation indexes in sociological and historical
Forschung. American Documentation, 14(4), 289–291.
Garfield, E. (2007). Tracing the influence of JD Bernal on the world
of science through citation analysis. Bernal Symposium on
Protein Crystallization. Dublin, September 3–4, 2007.
Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to scientometrics
visualizing the history of science with histcite software. Zeitschrift
of Informetrics, 3(3), 173–179.
Ginda, M., Scharnhorst, A., & Börner, K. (2016). Modelling the
structure and dynamics of science using books. In C. R. Sugimoto
(Ed.). Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication
(S. 304–334). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464-018
Goldsmith, M., & Mackay, A. L. (1964). The science of science:
Society in the technological age. London: Souvenir Press.
Hess, D. J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. Neu
York: New York University Press.
Holbrook, J. A. D. (1992). Why measure science? Science and
Public Policy, 19(5), 262–266.
Kawalec, P. (2019). The science of science: Some recent advances.
Ruch FilozoFiczny, 75(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.12775/RF.2019.019
Kokowski, M. (2015). The science of science (naukoznawstwo) In
Poland: The changing theoretical perspectives and political
contexts—a historical sketch from the 1910s to 1993. Organon, 47,
147–237.
Kuhn, R. L. (2019). Think about China for 70 years and my 30 pro-
sonal years. Speech at Chinese Civilization and China’s Path
Forum, November 1, 2019.
Leydesdorff, L. (1989). The relations between qualitative theory and
scientometric methods in science and technology studies.
Scientometrics, 15(5–6), 333–347.
Li, F., & Tang, L. (2019). When international mobility meets local
connections: Evidence from China. Science and Public Policy, 46(4),
518–529.
Li, N., Chen, K. H., & Kong, M. T. (2016). Technology foresight in China:
Academic studies, governmental practices and policy applications.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 246–255.
Quantitative Science Studies
967
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
The impact of J. D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China
Liu, Z. Y. (2012). On Hsue-shen Tsien’s thoughts of the science of
Wissenschaft (in Chinese). Studies in Science of Science, 30(1), 5–13.
Ma, Y., Zhao, Y. D., Gong, X., Sun, L., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Close
the gender gap in Chinese science. Natur, 557(7703), 25–27.
Muddiman, D. (2003). Red information scientist: The information
career of J. D. Bernal. Journal of Documentation, 59(4), 387–409.
Price, D. J. de Solla. (1964). The science of science. In M. Goldsmith
& A. L. Mackay (Hrsg.). The science of science: Society in the tech-
nological age. London: Souvenir Press.
Price, D. J. de Solla. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Wissenschaft,
149, 510–515.
Ramirez, R., Ravetz, J., Sharpe, B., & Varley, L. (2019). We need to
talk (more wisely) about wisdom: A set of conversations about
wisdom, Wissenschaft, and futures. Futures, 108, 72–80.
Scharnhorst, A., Börner, K., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Models
of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and
information sciences. London: Springer.
Sheehan, H. M. (2007). J. D. Bernal: Philosophy, politics and the science
of science. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 57(1), 29–39.
Small, H. (1998). Citations and consilience in science. Scientometrics,
43(1), 143–148.
Tang, L. (2019). Five ways China must cultivate research integrity.
Natur, 575(7784), 589–591.
Tsien, H. S. (1979). The science of science, system of science and
technology and Marxist philosophy (in Chinese). Philosophical
Forschung, 1, 20–27.
Tsien, H. S. (1983). The structure of modern science: Discussion on
scientific and technological system (in Chinese). Philosophical
Forschung, 3, 19–22.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (1988). Handbook of quantitative studies of sci-
ence and technology. Leiden: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Walentynowicz, B. (1982). Polish contributions to the science of
Wissenschaft. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Wilson, E. Ö. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Neu
York: Knopf.
Zeng, A., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Wu, J., Fan, Y., … Stanley, H. E.
(2017). The science of science: From the perspective of complex
Systeme. Physics Reports, 714–715, 1–73.
Zhao, H. Z., & Jiang, G. H. (1985). Shifting of world’s center and
scientists’ social ages. Scientometrics, 8(1), 59–80.
Zhao, H. Z., & Jiang, G. H. (1986). Life-span and precocity of scientists.
Scientometrics, 9(1–2), 27–36.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
Q
S
S
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
1
3
9
5
9
1
8
6
9
9
2
0
Q
S
S
_
A
_
0
0
0
6
4
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Quantitative Science Studies
968
