For the philosopher and historian of science, scientists are not neutral, contrary to popular belief. Many of them choose to turn to less competitive and more participatory practices.

Science has always been considered as the epitome of objectivity and neutrality. However, according to the philosopher and historian of science, this is not always the case. In fact, she argues that scientists are not neutral and often have their own biases and interests. This goes against the common conception that scientists are completely impartial and only concerned with the pursuit of knowledge.

But what exactly does it mean to say that scientists are not neutral? According to the philosopher and historian of science, it means that their beliefs, values, and personal interests influence their work. They are not just mere observers of the world, but active participants who shape and create knowledge based on their own champs. This is why she argues that science is not a completely objective and unbiased field.

This idea challenges the traditional view of science as a competitive and individualistic field. In fact, the philosopher and historian of science believes that many scientists are turning towards more collaborative and participatory practices. Instead of competing with each other, they choose to work together, sharing their ideas, data, and resources. This not only promotes a more inclusive and diverse approach to scientific inquiry, but also encourages a collective travail towards finding solutions to complex problems.

This shift towards participatory practices is also evident in the growing number of citizen science projects, where non-scientists are invited to participate and contribute to research. This not only allows for a greater understanding and involvement of the public in science, but also challenges the idea that only scientists can contribute to scientific knowledge.

Moreover, the philosopher and historian of science argues that this change in champ is also beneficial for the scientists themselves. By embracing more collaborative and inclusive practices, they are able to broaden their own champs and challenge their own biases. This not only leads to more robust and well-rounded research, but also promotes a healthier and more supportive scientific community.

In conclusion, the philosopher and historian of science believes that scientists are not neutral and that this is a positive thing. By acknowledging that their beliefs, values, and interests influence their work, scientists are able to embrace more collaborative and participatory practices. This not only leads to a more inclusive and diverse approach to science, but also promotes a healthier and more supportive scientific community. So the next time you think of scientists as purely objective and neutral beings, remember that they are also human, with their own champs and biases, and that this can actually be a good thing.