Postmodernism for animal scientists

Many scientists regard the term "postmodernism" as controversial. Because postmodern theorists question whether science can be objective, some scientists view postmodernism as anti-scientific. In this paper, we argue that traditional accounts of science developed during the modern era (16th, 17th, and 18th centuries) are still influential in animal science, but are no longer plausible. In particular, the view that science automatically leads to human betterment seems to be disingenuous. A postmodern view that portrays science as a political activity seems more plausible, and offers a means to better understand contentious policy issues that involve science. Although most animal scientists accept the view that theory selection, experimental designs, and technology development require value-laden judgments, most fail to recognize that such values may be politically motivated and embrace prevailing political structures. Postmodernists such as Michel Foucault argue that through the generation of knowledge, scientific disciplines create a discourse that serves to maintain a particular social structure that has political implications. Viewed in this way, it becomes clear how various interest groups can be critical of certain scientific programs. For example, groups that oppose research dealing with cloning, genetically modified organisms, and intensive livestock production may not be as much opposed to science as they are to the political interests served by this science. In other words, such groups view these research agendas as promoting policies that place them at risk. Such a postmodern account of science, may help animal scientists better understand the nature of contentious issues, and provide a basis for reforming the animal science discipline in ways that make it more responsive to the diverse interests of a pluralistic society.