Connection of Science and Politics - Coursework Example

Science and Politics: Understanding their Interrelatedness and the Influence that Both Fields Have On Each Other I. Introduction According to the Oxford dictionary, the word politics means "social relations involving authority or power" (see also www. wordnet.princeton.edu). Since Politics covers broad areas of social relationships and power, politics is present in almost all areas of endeavors. The field science is never immune to politics. Even though most of these scientific studies and researches are meant to be simple scientific exercises and discoveries, most of the scientific studies and researches have great impact on the lives of people that they take on political characteristics. Since time immemorial, people in the realm of science have dealt with internal and external politics. Internal politics occur when members of the scientific interact with each other and when the balance of powers is affected in the process of interaction. On the other hand, external politics can be observed by the way society influences the thinking of scientists and when government, in its exercise of sovereign powers, interfere with the activities of the scientific world. Although there are instances where science and politics should never be mixed, there are also some times when we have to consider the political aspects of a scientific research. Note that science is a very powerful field. When the people working in this field are left to their own devices, they can practically change the world for the good or for the worst. To help us understand when science should be free from politics and when politics should play a role in scientific researches, let us take a closer look into the internal and external politics in the scientific world. II. Internal Politics The internal politics in the scientific world is quite complicated. Just like most fields of endeavors, scientists have their own biases towards their colleagues and their works. In many cases, a scientist is judged by his or her colleagues not only on the outputs that he or she produces but also on his or her character, gender and overall status in the field of science. Although gender bias is no longer as big an issue as it used to be some decades ago, we cannot really say that gender bias is now totally eradicated in the scientific circle. Internal politics actually exist at different levels. For purposes of discussions, let us limit our coverage to gender biases and its effect on the work of a scientist. Much as we would like to believe that there is true gender equality in the field of science, there is still a gap between sexes when it comes to their roles in the scientific world. Technically, the struggle of women to be recognized as equal to men in the field of science dates back decades ago. In the past, women in the field of science were treated as inferior to their male counterparts. In fact, many women scientists were forced to go into a field which they do not really like simply because the field that they want to engage in is considered as not suitable for women (Rossiter, M. September 1980). Since there are many scientific field that were considered as politically unsuitable for women, the potentials for growth among women scientists is very much limited. Note that for many years, the objectivity of women in dealing with different situations has been questioned by some sectors of society (Harraway D. 1988). The political question on the objectivity of the "feminine" mind led to some conflicts among the members of the scientific community (Harraway D. 1988). The myth that women have different mind frame compared to their male counterparts and that women are less likely to be objective in treating data and facts in connection with their work created a gap between the outputs of male and female scientists (Evelleen Richards; John Schuster 1989). Moreover, because women were not considered as equal to their male counterparts, they were given "almost invisible kind of "womens work" which was designed to offer a harmonious way to incorporate the newcomers into the scientific labor force" (Rossiter, M. September 1980). Moreover, this practice gave birth to the idea of hierarchy in the scientific community. What was "formerly a fairly nonhierarchical collection of independent investigators" (Rossiter, M. September 1980) suddenly become part of a "highly bureaucratized "big science" (Rossiter, M. September 1980) where some people would have to be subordinates of the others. Once the segregation and hierarchy in the scientific world was established, its members are now being judged not only buy what her or she can do but also through other means and methods including color and race (H. L. Gordon 1934). It is not uncommon for a scientific discovery of another scientist to be contested by yet another scientist or group of scientists. The politics in this sense can be quite intense that if the scientist is not able to successfully defend his or her scientific findings, he or she can lose all credits to his or her work (Gusfield, Joseph R. (1981). Due to the segregation among the ranks of scientists occurred the growth potentials of people in this area are also limited. It is not uncommon for good ideas to be nipped in the bud because the "boss" is not really interested in it. The worst part of it is that since a scientist is now as part of a "large science" (Rossiter Margaret W. (1980) and is therefore considered as a hired help. He or she needs to abide by the rules of his or her superiors. If his or her superiors consider some issues as taboo, he or she should not talk or openly discuss his ideas on the matter lest he or she loses her job. This is really sad because science is supposed to be a place for dynamic and free flowing ideas. By creating a barrier in the flow of ideas, we inadvertently stifle the flow of knowledge. Given this scenario, the idea of incorporating politics into an otherwise purely scientific environment is detrimental to the development of science. Note that when start arguing about human relationships and powers, we become more emotional that our judgments often gets tainted by our own biases. It is therefore important that we do not mix internal politics and science. III. External Politics While internal politics may bring more detriment than good to science, the influence of external politics to the field of science have a more ambivalent effect. Note that external politics plays a very big role in the development of science. For centuries, governments have used the power of science to preserve life and to improve the living conditions of people. However, the downside of it is that science has also been used by these same governments to take lives and to harm the environment. Moreover, the interventions of these governments in the scientific researches conducted within their jurisdiction altered the direction of many research projects. Although some of the new directions taken by these scientific researches are beneficial to humankind, some of these directions are actually counterproductive and even destructive. Given this scenario, we come to the question as to whether or not politics is indeed part of science. To help us understand why politics is beneficial and why it is not to science at some points, let us look into the different scientific activities that are closely tied up to politics. For purposes of discussion, let us look into the areas of nuclear energy, weapons of mass destruction, AIDS treatment, and genetic engineering. The discovery of nuclear energy is one of the turning points of science. The tremendous power of nuclear energy changed the way people and government thinks about the world. For one thing, science changed the ideas of governments about weapons and wars. The use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction clearly illustrates the relationship between science and politics. Because of the tremendous power that nuclear weapons have, there is a need for the government to intervene in its production and use (Martin B. 1988). The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan through the atomic bomb during World War II is a clear message to the whole world that governments should not give anybody a freehand on the production and use of atomic or nuclear energy (Sherwin, Martin J. (2003). The destruction wrought by the atomic bomb was so great that up to these days, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still considered as wastelands. On the other hand, the political intervention of the government in controlling the use of nuclear power plants to generate energy is also justified. Note that the intervention and control of the government on the operations of nuclear power plants can prevent accidents such as what happened in Chernobyl, Soviet Union last April 26, 1986 (Mould, Richard Francis (2000). With proper government supervision and regulations, nuclear accidents can be prevented and mitigated. Because of the great powers that nuclear technology wields, its use becomes a political concern. We must understand that when dealing with great powers, the political will of the government should be called upon to control and channel this great power to proper use. Political interventions are needed to protect the interest of the public. We have to understand that when a technology has the potential to affect a large number of people, the use of that technology becomes political. Members of the scientific community cannot just simply say that they are immune from external political control because they are doing something that is purely scientific. While government interventions in the field of nuclear science is needed to protect the interest of the general public, such interventions can also be disastrous especially when the government decides to harness science to create weapons of mass destruction. If we take a look into the history of the world, the invention of the gunpowder in China during the 9th century changed the course of history (Buchanan, Brenda J., ed. (2006). From then on, there were no stopping scientists from discovering more and there was no stopping the leaders of nations from asking the scientists to produce weapons of higher capacity for destruction. With the advancement of science and through the urging of some governments all over the world, more high powered weapons are being produced every day (Winkler A.M. (1999). As a result, more people die and more properties are destroyed. Aside from using science to produce high powered weapons, what is more alarming is that some political organizations and groups, including some government entities are commissioning scientists to produce chemical and biological weapons. In fact, the first recorded biological weapons were unleashed as early as 1346 during the plague known as the Black Death in 1347-1352 (Martin B. 1988). The Tartar soldier threw a dead body afflicted with small fox into the Black Sea port of Kaffa (Martin B. 1988) in the effort to neutralize their enemies. On the other hand, history tells us that as early as World War I chemical weapons have been used to neutralize enemies. Note that during World War I, the German Army used chlorine gas to fight the Allied forces (Martin B. 1988). The effect of the use of chemical and biological weapons is really catastrophic. Not only does this practice kill people, it also destroys the environment thus making it more difficult for the survivors of the initial attack to live normal lives. It is really sad how the wrong use of technology can bring so much chaos and destruction all over the world. It is therefore very important for political interventions in this area to help prevent the abuse of this technology (Gieryn Thomas F. (1983). Proper policies protecting the interests of the general public should be in place and to do this, political interventions must be made on the use of the technology. While the intervention of the government on in the areas of nuclear science can be seen as having both negative and positive impact, political interventions in the area of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) treatment can be viewed in a more positive light. We have to understand that the AIDS epidemic has reached such alarming magnitude that it is now considered as a political issue. With so many people dying of AIDS all over the world, the issue of AIDS research and treatment is no longer a simple scientific matter. Political intervention from the government is needed in terms of finding solutions to the problem. To address the problem of AIDS in many parts of the world, direct interventions of the government is needed to speed up scientific research in this area (Densham, A. 2006). Political interventions through policies can also greatly help prevent the spread of the disease (Siplon, Trish. 2002). Moreover, government control and interventions are needed to make sure that the research and experiments conducted to find cure for AIDS are done in an ethical manner (Epstein S. 1995). Although there is a need to find a cure to AIDS as fast as possible, this does not mean that scientists conducting AIDS research can go beyond what is ethical. Testing drugs to fight AIDS should be done with utmost care (Smith, Raymond, and Trish Siplon. 2006). Moreover, since the problem of AIDS is wide spread, educating the public about the problem is no longer a mere scientific. The involvement of the government and the public in the area of AIDS education is imperative (Bosia,Michael. 2005). While fighting AIDS takes on a more favorable ground when it comes to aligning science and politics, the area of genetic engineering poses yet another angle. For many years, genetic engineering has gathered mixed reactions from the public. Debates have been raging about genetic engineering at different levels. While the scientific community is very much excited at breaking new frontiers in the areas of genetic engineering, different sectors of society are bent on shutting down some of these scientific researches. Issues on bio-safety have prompted many political groups to push for a protocol to regulate and control experiments on bio-engineering (Mackenzie et al 2003). Since bio-engineering is a relatively young technology, there are things that scientists do not really know about this area and this made the public nervous about the impact of this technology. IV. Conclusion Given the fact that internal politics can hamper the progress of scientific researches, science should be kept free from internal politics. Gender biases and racism should be totally eradicated. Moreover, when critiquing peers work, scientists should stick to the facts involved and not judge the work of their colleagues based on any other factors. On the other hand, external politics is something that has both positive and negative impact on science thus there is a need to treat external politics with more caution. Although science and politics are two different fields, these two fields should never really be treated as absolutely independent from each other. There may be a number of routine processes where science can be construed as separate from politics, yet, given the nature of science and politics, one cannot really truly separate the two of them. The impact of science on the lives of people and society gives it a political character which needs interventions at different levels including policies. In cases where science cannot be totally separated from politics, policies should be formulated to safeguard the interest of the public while giving science a chance to progress. Proper regulations, standards and monitoring systems should be in place to make sure that scientific researches are done through ethical manner. Works Cited: 1. Bosia,Michael. (2005). Assassin! AIDS and neoliberal reform in France.New Political Science 27 (3): 291–308. 2. Buchanan, Brenda J., ed. (2006), Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History, Aldershot: Ashgate 3. Densham, Andrea (December 2006) Introduction: Politics as a Cause and Consequence of the AIDS Pandemic. Perspectives on Politics retrieved 9 December 2007 http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/POPDec06Densham.pdf 4. DH. L. Gordon (1934) The Mental Capacity of the African: A Paper Read before the African Circle Journal of the Royal African Society, Vol. 33, No. 132. (Jul., 1934), pp. 226-242. 5. Evelleen Richards; John Schuster (1989) The Feminine Method as Myth and Accounting Resource: A Challenge to Gender Studies and Social Studies of Science Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 4. (Nov., 1989), pp. 697-720. 6. Gieryn Thomas F. (1983) "Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists", American Sociological Review, 48, December 1983, pages 781-795. 7. Gusfield, Joseph R. (1981), The Culture of Public Problems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pages 83-108; 8. Haraway Donna (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Autumn, 1988), pp. 575-599. 9. www. wordnet http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=politics 10. Mackenzie Ruth et. al (2003). An Eplantory Guide to the Cartagena protocol on Bio-safety. IUCN Environmental Policy and law Paper No. 46 11. Martin Brian (1988)  Nuclear winter: science and politics Published in Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1988, pp. 321-334 retrieved 9 December 2007 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/88spp.html 12. Mould, Richard Francis (2000). Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. CRC Press, p. 48 13. Rossiter Margaret W. (1980) "Womens Work" in Science, 1880-1910 Isis, Vol. 71, No. 3. (Sep., 1980), pp. 381-398. 14. Sherwin, Martin J. (2003). A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and its Legacies. Stanford University Press 15. Siplon, Trish. (2002). AIDS and the Policy Struggle in the U.S. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 16. Smith, Raymond, and Trish Siplon. (2006). Drugs into Bodies: Global AIDS Treatment Activism. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 17. Steven Epstein (1995) The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 20, No. 4, Special Issue: Constructivist Perspectives on Medical Work: Medical Practices and Science and Technology Studies. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 408-437. 18. Winkler A.M. (1999), Life Under a Cloud: American Anxiety About the Bomb,University of Illinois Press, Chicago, Read More