Society is changing rapidly: Continuing economic growth and globalization, rapid technological developments, and a steady increase of the flow of information leads to often unpredictable and bewildering transformations (Castells, 2000). In our western democracies, such transformations contribute to a flexible, modern network society that does not match the more traditional and hierarchical relationships between government and its citizens that dominated earlier societies. Old principles of hierarchical democratic government are increasingly being challenged as alienated citizens feel that their interests are not well represented by their elected representatives, as evidenced by low voter turnouts during elections and the success of protest parties. Changes in society have, of course, always occurred in history. After the rather static agrarian economy before the nineteenth century, the industrial economy brought fundamental changes in the ninetieth and early twentieth century that were transformed again as the service economy developed after the 1970s. Now, in the West, there is increasing awareness of the "experience economy" as the impact of the media becomes ever more pervasive (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). Three reasons may be given to explain this latest development. The first is the material well-being in our western world, where the basic needs of life are met for many people and there is money to spare for luxury. The second is individualization, the unimpeded freedom to follow one's individual tastes and desires (Giddins, 1991). The third reason, globalization, appears contradictory at first sight with the second but does play a significant role. Processes and events all over the world have more and more in common, if only because of evermore effective global communication. Traditional institutions, such as the nation-state, become less important than cultural communities, which are networks from global to local scale, organized around particular values and interests. So far, this analysis focused on developed countries, but globalization is particularly relevant for developing countries as the gap between rich and poor in north and south widens rather than becomes smaller. The United Nations millennium goal, to reduce global poverty by 50% by 2015, illustrates an increasing awareness that global well-being cannot exist when 800 million people have to get by with less than one dollar a day. Do these societal changes and global challenges affect science? And, more particularly, soil science? To answer that question it is important to avoid the trap of making an exclusive analysis from our own perspective rather than trying to really comprehend and integrate visions by others, be it colleague scientists, citizens, stakeholders, planners, or politicians. An inward-looking attitude does not create mutual understanding and all too often leads to a sterile debate. Better ways have to be explored. We need help here, and philosophy and sociology can offer valuable insights into the processes involved and their context. To come to grips with the challenge to realistically articulate different visions and approaches as to what is perceived to be the future role of science in society, Habermas (1984) distinguishes three basic human abilities to cope with the mysteries of life: (i) creating knowledge by using objective standards, (ii) having joint experiences of groups of people, as codified in social norms and values, and (iii) enjoying and cherishing individual experiences. This three-fold distinction, which has universal significance and applies to developed and developing countries alike (be it in quite different ways), is helpful in articulating the relationships of scientists, individually and within a group, with their professional colleagues and with society at large. Such relationships are particularly important for soil science because it deals with land and its use. This has a particular appeal to humans as it visibly and directly affects their lives, even though city dwellers are farther removed from the earth than their rural brothers and sisters. There are signals that relations between science and society are changing. Recently, for example, a new major government program on innovation research was initiated in The Netherlands to the tune of 800 million euros. These funds were not provided to universities or research institutes but to a consortia consisting of industrial firms, governmental and nongovernmental agencies, citizens groups, and, yes, scientists. Science institutions by themselves are no longer the logical and exclusive recipient of research funds. At the same time, state-funding levels of universities and research institutes are cut while being increasingly subject to deliverables in terms of specific output or of cost-sharing arrangements with industry. Considering these diverse developments, the overall objective of this paper is to explore developments in soil science, considering the above-mentioned structural changes in society, by (i) analyzing the above-mentioned three basic human abilities in terms of their implications for the relationship between soil science and society, and (ii) considering the possible implications for soil science in future, emphasizing relationships with various stakeholders and policymakers. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
