Revisiting the social contract for science

The conceptual framework that presents scientific researchers in a transactional relationship with wider society, receiving funding and autonomy in exchange for producing beneficial discoveries and outcomes, is generally known as the social contract for science. This contract has been revisited multiple times, with iterations evolving as ‘wicked problems’ have become identified by many as priorities for research, and as funding models have become more generally tied to predefined or applied outcomes. In parallel, within the Arts and Humanities, there has been growing discourse on the characteristics and ramifications of ‘Modernism’, ‘Postmodernism’, ‘Liquid Modernity’, and ‘Metamodernism’. This paper juxtaposes these two separate bodies of thought, and in doing so, identifies that both are underpinned by similar core themes: (1) ‘trust’ (including a loss of trust in professional researchers, or objective, unproblematic truth), (2) ‘acceleration’ (including acceleration of research outputs), and (3) ‘crisis’ (including narratives of risk, urgency, and emergency underpinning research). Comparison also reveals the importance of narrative, ‘polylogue’, and transparency in navigating modern research into ‘metacrises’. Considering the next iteration of the Social Contract for Science may be helpful in navigating uncertainty, complexity, and (in some quarters) dissatisfaction with the current funding model of university research. • The Social Contract for Science imagines a transactional relationship between scientists and society. • Modernism, Postmodernism, Liquid Modernity and Metamodernism address truth, objectivity, and narratives. • In juxtaposition, shared themes of trust, acceleration, and uncertainty emerge. • Moving forward, we need the next iteration of the social contract for meaningful research engagement.