The Man of Science as an Intellectual: The Public Mission of Scientist


  • O. N. Kubalskyi Dobrov Institute for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine



man, a man of science, intellectual, public sphere, social elites, social mass


Purpose. The paper is aimed at identifying the ways of scientist’s influence on the development of modern society as compared to those of intellectuals. Theoretical basis. The socio-anthropological approach to the role of scientists in post-industrial society shows the leading role of people of science as a social group in present-day society. However, philosophical axiology reveals that scientists in today’s society do not have the appropriate social status: neither in state governance nor in the sphere of forming public opinion. The classical doctrine concerning intellectuals has suffered a crisis in recent decades, which is due to the growing gap between the group of intellectuals recognized by society and the sphere of science. A new theoretical approach to determining the role of present-day research scientists as intellectuals is necessary. Originality. Successful development of modern society in conditions of growing social turbulence necessitates the access of research scientists to the sphere of public communication. This is required both by the needs of science advancement itself – to receive its adequate funding and win wide public recognition, and by society’s needs – as it is scientists who can provide reliable diagnostics of social problems and formulate well-grounded programs for overcoming them. Conclusions. For overcoming social barriers and getting access to public space, scientists themselves have to recognize themselves as a destitute social group – those who are unfairly deprived of making principal decisions in today’s society. For that, scientists should become modern intellectuals. Unlike media intellectuals, scientists are to interact not with social masses but, first and foremost, with public elites. The scientist has to gain his/her independent status by achieving the recognition of his/her own ideas among social elites rather than by winning wide personal popularity. Hence, scientists must aim at obtaining the status of the elite for elites – this would reveal in scientists the deepest potential of a modern man.


Beigbeder, F. (2015). Conversations d’un enfant du siécle. Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle. (in French)

Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books. (in English)

Ferkiss, V. (1979). Daniel Bell’s Concept of Post-Industrial Society: Theory, Myth, and Ideology. The Political Science Reviewer, 9, 61-102. (in English)

Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements. American Sociological Review, 70(2), 204-232. (in English)

Gattone, C. F. (2012). The Social Scientist as Public Intellectual in an Age of Mass Media. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25(4), 175-186. DOI: (in English)

Gleiser, M. (2021, December 1). Opinion: Bridging the Intellectual Divide. The Scientist. Retrieved from (in English)

Gupta, S. (2021, October 28). Scientists should report results with intellectual humility. Here’s how. Science News. Retrieved from (in English)

Habermas, J. (2022, April 28). Krieg und Empörung. Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved from (in German)

Harvard, S., Werker, G. R., & Silva, D. S. (2020). Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling. Social Science & Medicine, 253. DOI: (in English)

Hilligardt, H. (2022). Looking beyond values: The legitimacy of social perspectives, opinions and interests in science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 12(4). DOI: (in English)

Kubalskyi, O. N. (2022). Communicative Approach to Determining the Role of Personality in Science. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (22), 36-48. DOI: (in English)

Lamberts, R. (2017). Science communication: frequently public, occasionally intellectual. Journal of Science Communication, 16(01). DOI : (in English)

Leclerc, G. (2003). Sociologie des intellectuels. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (in French)

Loeb, A. (2020, August 31). The Dangers of Intellectual Territorialism. Scientific American. Retrieved from (in English)

Montefiore, A. (1998). Responsibilities of scientists and intellectuals. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. DOI: (in English)

Orzel, C. (2018, January 23). We Need More Scientists As Public Intellectuals. Forbes. Retrieved from (in English)

PEN International. (n.d.). Retrieved from (in English)

Pinker, S. (2018, February 13). The Intellectual War on Science. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from (in English)

Rolin, K. (2016). Values, standpoints, and scientific/intellectual movements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 11-19. DOI: (in English)

Schweber, S. S. (1981). Scientists As Intellectuals: The Early Victorians. In J. Paradis & T. Postlewait (Eds.), Victorian Science and Victorian Values: Literary Perspectives (pp. 1-37). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences. (in English)

Sloterdijk, P. (1983). Kritik der zynischen Vernunft (Vol. 1). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (in German)

Teixeira, A. A. C., & Silva, J. M. (2013). The intellectual and scientific basis of science, technology and innovation research. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(4), 472-490. DOI: (in English)

Toole, B. (2022). Demarginalizing Standpoint Epistemology. Episteme, 19(1), 47-65. DOI: (in English)




How to Cite

Kubalskyi, O. N. (2023). The Man of Science as an Intellectual: The Public Mission of Scientist. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (23), 61–69.