In the first part of this article, three forms that the autonomy of science has assumed in the course of its history are distinguished: the Galilean one, the Vannevarian one, and the neoliberal one. The Galilean form was claimed by Galileo in his conflict with the Catholic Church. The term "Vannevarian" comes from Vannevar Bush, responsible for the report, Science, the endless frontier, which played a crucial role in the configuration of scientific practices in the post World War II period. Vannevarian autonomy has to do with the directions of scientific research. Neoliberal autonomy consists in each scientist's freedom to search for funds for the research he intends to carry out from any source, public or private, in view only of his self-interest (intellectual or economic). In the second part of the article, the conceptual and historic frameworks provided by those distinctions are used to discuss the question: "what form of autonomy should be claimed by science today?" The procedure consists in determining, for each of the three forms, what should be maintained, and what should be abandoned. The conclusion arrived at is that neoliberal autonomy should be discarded, the Vannevarian one restricted, and the Galilean one preserved.
Autonomy of science; Galileo; Serendipity; Neoliberalism; Commodification; Innovation; Social responsibility in science; Scientific éthos; Merton; Conflict of interests