Use and Misuse of Science by Governments - Assignment Example

Running Head: USE AND MISUSE OF SCIENCE BY GOVERNMENTS Name Course Tutor Date Introduction Science is an important field in the human day to day life and it is because of this that technological advancements have significantly been made. Science has continued to make human life easier and more comfortable through inventions and creations it has developed. For instance, in the communication sector, science has made significant steps. Communication from all parts of the world has become real time and is highly effective. The same can be said in the production of goods and services among other fields. Scientific research has seen medications developed for various illnesses which have helped in prevention and cure of illnesses. Every person utilises science in their everyday life in one way or the other. This may be individually or even collectively. Governments all over the world seek to ensure about the welfare of people they govern (Jasanoff, 2003, p. 225). Governments are politically responsible for provision of social welfare and ensuring the safety of the people in the country. They use public funds raised from the public to carry out their activities. In this view, governments are responsible for various sectors that are supposed to oversee the welfare of the people. Such sectors include health, education, security, and legal, military among other sectors (Rothstein, & Teorell, 2008, p. 165). Politics play a huge role in determining the budgetary allocations that these sectors receive for them to carry out their activities effectively. This also depends on the type of activities that are planned for the sectors. As a result, governments have invested heavily in research and science in order to ensure that certain gaps in the leadership and safeguarding their welfare has been fulfilled. In this view, governments have all over the world used science to large extents. The main issue is whether science has been used appropriately or not under the influence of politics. For instance, military advancements are heavily influenced by the politics of the day. They determine the way allocated funds are to be used. They may be used to develop more sophisticated weapons or advance the military infrastructure. Evidence from all over the world has shown that governments and politics can either use or misuse science (Lundvall, & Borrás, 2005, p. 6). This is facilitated by the ability to control public funds and make decisions on their usage. This essay examines how governments and politics can use or misuse science in their governance activities As noted earlier, there are many endeavours which governments can utilise scientific knowledge and advancement. This is guided by political goodwill and responsibility as a governments and the ability to be appealing to the electorates. Therefore in the eyes of the public, governments try to use science in a manner that the public would approve of and benefit as well. For instance, natural disasters have claimed many lives in different parts of the world. It is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from the detriments of such occurrences (Sanderson, 2002, p. 13). Governments are therefore investing in scientific research to enable them predict such occurrences. This has enabled tracing of natural weather phenomenon such as typhoons and hurricanes and hence averting eminent disasters. It enables forewarning and preparation in advance for such cases. Science has also been utilised in humanitarian efforts when disaster strikes unawares (Nutley, Davies, & Smith, 2000, p. 19). Military advancements and technology are probably the most controversial public spending that governments undertake. Governments spend billions of dollars annually in weapon manufacture, procurement and research. While it is important to protect a country from its emeries, critics have argued that the use of significant amounts of public funds to facilitate military efforts is illogical (Dunne, Smith, & Willenbockel, 2005, p. 500). Major countries in the west boast of military sophistication and advancements. Social activists argue that such funds could be utilised in ensuring the welfare of the poor and providing social amnesties to those affected by economic hardships. They often question the need to prepare for a war that might never happen. The public funds could be used for fostering global peace and cohesion and catering for the vulnerable groups in the community. In this case, proponents argue that such spending is necessary while critics see it as a misuse of science and public funds accompanying social costs are very high and have negative implications on the people ( Hossein-zadeh, 2009, p. 1). It is eminent that science and politics will always be an issue for discussion. As a result, it will always have a place in government and politics. The main issue is how it is utilised, whether positively or negatively. In the recent, past., a country like South Korea has been under criticism form the international community due to its nuclear weapons programs. The social state of the matter in the country is dire for thousands who face poverty and lack of basic social amenities. In a bid to gain military supremacy, the common citizens end up having a humanitarian crisis. In such a case where a government choses to manufacture weapons instead of feed its people, then it could be termed as misuse of technology and misplacement of priorities (Higgs, 2008, p. 147). The welfare of the people should always come first and all policies should be geared towards ensuring this in governments. The question that arises is what role science should play in government policy making endeavours. Science should act as a guideline which informs the policy making process. It should not determine the policy but guide and inform its formation. It should be realised that there are other forms of knowledge that could be applied and are legitimate. The view of science also varies with different people depending on culture and values. This is the reason that its use may conflict between different groups of people. Governments and politics are responsible for the creation of policies in a country. Policies created mainly follow an economic, social or ecological paradigm. Science understands that all cannot be known and the best way to deal with this is through accurate prediction which is limited to certain precisions. In determining whether governments misuse or use science appropriately, it is reflected in the policies that they implement. The difference lays between science led policies and policy led science. Science led policies are policies that are put in place to deal with issues that arise as a result of developments in science and technology (Poliakoff, Fitzpatrick, Farren, & Anastas, 2002, p. 808). For instance a government may, make a policy meant to tackle the detrimental effects of scientific activities in the country. A country may come up with an anti pollution policy as a result of industrial pollution in a given city (Castells, Hall, 2009, p. 14). Sometimes, the policies that governments make may have resulted from their own misuse of science in a bid to correct or reverse the mistake. Policy led science on the other hand, entails the use of scientific research and evidence from expert opinion which policy makers need from scientists to provide solutions for problems (Dolowitz, Marsh, 2000, p. 6). Therefore, policymakers seek advice from scientific experts with knowledge about specific fields on what is appropriate. For instance, environmental politicians may seek advice from environmental scientists on the best policies to adopt when dealing with environmental protection. In this view, governments can enact laws based on information provided by science. For example many counties have laws protecting wild heritages and endangered species. The information leading to these policy decisions can be seen as positive use of science by governments through appropriate policymaking (Defending Science, 2012). Governments and politics generally abuse science when it is deemed to have negative effects on their interests, be it either personal or collective. This may result from conflicts that may arise and interferes with aspects such as economic welfare. For instance, a government may allow polluting technology to continue being used in a country because it leads to high economic returns ( Noveck, S, 2009, p. 11). Scientific concepts may also interfere with social concepts that the government may advocate for. When a conflict arises between government and science, the government may result to politicising the issue and even ridiculing the science behind it. The scientists themselves may be attacked and receive reprimanding consequences such as cutting of funding or loss of jobs. The scientists end up being victimised for differing with the government. For example, scientists may come up with recommendations against use of certain technologies that the government advocates for or uses. Conclusion Science is a very crucial part of the modern human life. Its application is however limited to some extents and scopes as implemented by governments through politics. Governments and science can work together in ensuring better services and better life for citizens or the contrary. Collaboration between the two is essential if meaningful benefits are to be raped from science and its application. When there is a conflict between science and governments, the end result may be devastating for the people. Science also needs to be guided by ethics in what it applies and what it does not. Science should not be used to orchestrate social evils on the citizens of a country. Instead it should be used to solve problems and make life more comfortable for people. In this case, the policies that governments implement should be driven by a science oriented approach which intent problem is solving with minimal harm to people and the environment. References Castells, M, & Hall, P, 2009,. Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty-first-century industrial complexes. Defending Science, 2012, Defending Science. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from Science in Government Decision-Making:< http://defendingscience.org/science-government-decision-making> Dolowitz, D, & Marsh, D, 2000, ‘Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy‐making’, Governance, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 5-23. Dunne, J. P., Smith, R. P., & Willenbockel, D. (2005). Models of military expenditure and growth: A critical review. Defence and Peace Economics, 16(6), 449-461. Guston, D, 2007, Between politics and science: assuring the integrity and productivity of reseach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Higgs, R. 2008, "Military Spending/Gross Domestic Product = Nonsense for Budget Policymaking", The Independent Review, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 147-149. Hossein-zadeh, I. 2009, "Social vs. Military Spending: How the Escalating Pentagon Budget Crowds out Public Infrastructure and Aggravates Natural Disasters - the Case of Hurricane Katrina", Review of Social Economy, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1. Jasanoff, S, 2003, ‘Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science’, Minerva, vol. 41, no.3, pp. 223-244. Lathrop, D, Ruma, L, 2010, Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. O'Reilly Media, Inc. Lundvall, B, & Borrás, S, 2005, ‘Science, technology and innovation policy’, The Oxford handbook of innovation, pp. 599-631. Noveck, S, 2009, Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press, London. Nutley, S, Davies, H, & Smith, P, 2000, What works?: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services, The Policy Press. Poliakoff, M, Fitzpatrick, J, Farren, T, & Anastas, P, 2002, ‘Green chemistry: science and politics of change’, Science, vol. 297, no.5582, pp. 807-810. Rothstein, B, & Teorell, J, 2008, ‘What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions’, Governance, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 165-190. Sanderson, I, 2002, ‘Evaluation, policy learning and evidence‐based policy making’,Public administration, vol. 80, no. 1, pp.1-22. Read More