Abstract
In Western societies, the reality of drugs is constructed by different actors in public arenas. One group of actors are scientists and experts.
However, in comparison with other actors, they are rarely subjected to the analysis of their practices. Thus, the aim of this contribution is to outline the analysis of scientific practices with special attention to the relation of scientific practices to public debate.
Scientists claim to have knowledge (objective truth), which is produced in a form of objective 'modern facts' - numbers and quantitative procedures - that are superior to commonsense knowledge. This objectivity and superiority of science is taken-forgranted.
I argue that these claims have consequences not only for the practice of science but also for public debate. The limitations of models slip the mind of scientists.
In addition to that, the limitations, which are based in the environment of science, are not reflected. It is forgotten that the results of studies are dependent on the social background of researcher, on public discourses, and on the organisation of society (funding, public policy documents, data from criminal justice system, etc).
Concerning public debate, objective science has a communication problem. The objective data (numbers) are frequently overlooked by politicians and 'misinterpreted' by journalists.
The stress on numbers hinders the use of stories produced by qualitative researchers to attract readers outside academia. Furthermore, the objectivity and superiority claims plausibly result in the ignorance of different actors towards scientific results because 'averages' presented in public arenas are in contradiction with lived experiences.
A current example of this phenomenon is the notion of 'post-truth' and 'alternative facts'.