Are There Necessary Links between Science and Democracy - Essay Example

Running Head: SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY Are there necessary links between science and democracy? Name Course Tutor Date Introduction There have been continuous debates over the relationship that exists between science and democracy. First, there are those who argue that the two fields are completely independent and do not influence each other. There is also the group that believes that science and democracy are closely tied and influence the paths that either of them takes. The interaction between the two filed takes many perspectives from social, economic, political and even environmental science has the capability of making our lives better by devising ways of solving problems. Life with science is more bearable and easier. Science on the other hand has been blamed for evils experienced in society have been blamed on scientific advancements and the inability to control hazards emanating from science. Science as a field is applicable in many fields that humanity utilizes on a regular basis. The application is in fields like psychology, physiology, sociology, political environments among others. As much as we owe a lot to science, the freedom of carrying using scientific approaches in different fields have had some effect, both positive and negative on the human race. Democracy allows people to conduct their activities in a free manner that they deem appropriate in the perspectives. The rule of democracy is based o the views and choices made by a majority of the people choices made by a majority will often determine the way scientific endeavors are carried out in a community. For instance, when people elect into office leaders that are not pro environmental, the result will be exploitation at the cost of the environment. In a democratic world, the majorities are allowed to have their way and have their choices implemented while the minority can only express their views (Brown, 2009,, p. 5). People with minority views are not discriminated or victimized in a democratic world. Every person is entitled to their own opinion as long as it does not infringe on the fundamental rights that others should enjoy freely. In this essay the link between science and democracy will be evaluated and discussed fin depth. Arguments for and against the topic will also be discussed. Links between science and democracy Society thinks of science from different perspectives and explanations. It is based on values, opinions and values. Most societies have a basic perception of these aspects of social lives. Opinions are based on what a society believes to be right and what is not. Opinions are generally based on the effects that these two aspect present to them. On the issue of values, it depends on beliefs and norms that have been held in a particular society and has been passed from one generation to the next. Values form the basis of culture and how society perceives democratic and scientific views. Attitudes on the other hand are influenced by experiences and personal perspectives on issues. Attitudes are shared by societies that have common factors that relate to them. The factors affect how people link democracy and science and the views they have on them. As a result, different people from diverse origins have varying ways which they link the two perspectives. In the modern society, science plays a significant yet controversial role in the political arena. Science has been blamed for some of the central problems that society is experiencing today. For instance, taking the example of depletion of the ozone layer; science acknowledges that there is a problem and comes up with possible solution to solve it. Democracy on the other hand is faced with a myriad of options that society has to choose from. In light to this, the scientific role is to determine problems facing society and give viable options. From there, political dimensions take shape by influencing society through a democratic process to decide on the best course of action. It is worth noting that the initial problem was caused by science itself through technological advancements and industrialization which are the main polluters of the ozone layer. This brings out the paradoxical relationship that science and politics have in a democratic society. The dilemma shows that though science may be the solution to most of the problems in society, it is also one of the main players in causing the problems in the first place. Society has the democratic right to decide what is necessary and good for it. It has the power to control science and its effects on their lives. However, this is not the case. The main reason for this is that science is unpredictable and what it holds in future can only be speculated. Furthermore, the quest for humanity to become better and advanced allows science to carry on without much regulations and restrictions. The link between since and democracy can be traced to the cold fusion discovery. In 1980 Stanley Pons and martin Fleischman present their scientific invention of the cold fusion. The scientific invention was so hyped and anticipated and even received support from the state. First, it is clear that the state, which is democratically run, wanted to make the lives of its citizens better by making the decision to support scientific invention. The decision was based on the view that the invention had the potential of revolutionizing the world economy by producing electricity with convenience. Soon after the discovery, the invention was discredited by scientists and researcher all over the world. Soon the university where it was invented was closed down and funding into the project was cuts. The issue was politicized and in the end, it was deemed to be unsustainable. In this view, the authorities were not convinced that the project was commercially and economically viable after all (Che, Lu, Tao, & Wang, 2013, p. 163). Therefore, the approval of democracy on science is highly depended on the economic value that it adds to society. Techno scientific advancements that are not commercially and socially beneficial will often be blocked by the views and opinions of the majority. This is the reason why governments and authorities fund research and technological advancements in a bid to determine their viability and ability to effect meaningful change in society. Often, government institutions and authorities do not want to be seen by their electorates as scientifically disoriented, society has the perception that science is there to make life better and improve social and economic welfare. Society owes a lot to science in terms of health, social welfare, economic prosperity, and education. In a bid to comply with the will of society, governments will often fund scientific research to appeal to society. Sometimes, some of these scientific studies take up a lot of public funds but no viable economic inventions are made. It is the belief that current technologies can always be made better that drive more funds and public resources to scientific research. Even when business prospects are poor, science should serve to meet the needs of society by providing affordable inventions in public interests. For instance, society demands that authorities should provide expensive medication to all at cheap rates or even for free. The underserved should also receive some of these amenities free of charge. This is the cost of democracy to society through use of public assets to offset deficits that accrue. From this argument, a majority of people in society demand that public spending should be more focused on science. For instance, the research into finding a HIV AIDS vaccine has spanned for years, spending billions of dollars without much success. A willing society could just advocate for behavioral change and caution and direct the much needed resources to other channels. The issue is whether would be willing to live without further advancements and make choices from the many viable options available to them. The decisions are generally based on cultural, social, and economic criteria (Feenberg, 2009, p. 5). The link between science and democracy did not have a major significance until after World War II. The political perspective on the Manhattan project and radar research formed a major revolution in the democratization of science. The project changed the course which the war took and there after the relationship between science, governance, politics and even business. From this, issues of scientific concerns were subjected to public interventions. In the Manhattan project, some soldiers were sworn to secrecy throughout the war. When it came to the decision whether to use a bomb or not during the war, they realized at that point that they were not simply military officers employed by the government but had the democratic power to determine otherwise. They could express their opinion on the matter as well. Though the use of the bomb was actually implemented, the soldiers committed to advocating for public opinion when they were no longer bound by the military. Their advocacy led to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists which influenced society to take stands against arms and advocate for disarmaments. The opinion f the majority finally prevailed and effected on public policy. In the past, political decisions were made based on what was regarded as expert opinions. Public opinion was often disregarded by expert opinions. However, the power in numbers used persuasive ways to get scientific evils out of society. At that time, the perception of science was negative especially after the effects that war impacted on society. Scientists chose the better way of educating the public in a bi to curb the upsurges. The reason for this was the view that an uninformed and democratic public would hinder government efforts in inn making crucial scientific decisions and gaining important knowledge (Feenberg, 2009, p. 7). Between the 1960s and 1970s, environmental concers started taking center stage. Biologists and environmental scientists viewed that they possessed knowledge that was important to the public. They also educated the public on what was happening and how they could do something about it. In this case, science recognizes the power of democracy in advocating for change and us of science to solve problems affecting society. However, disagreements and divisions in the scientific fraternity weakened the public influence. The differences were caused by different opinions which different scientists held on pollution, population, health, and possible regulations. The most convincing scientist in the eyes of the public got their strategies implemented with support from a majority of the public. The split in the scientific fraternity meant that scientists could no longer be collective educators on different matters. As a result, the scientific debates shifted to political dimensions as scientists sought to garner support from the ignorant public. In some case where scientists politically received public approval, disasters happened, leaving the public in a state of confusion. This was evident in The Three Mile nuclear disaster in 1979 and the 1986 Challenger accident (Feenberg, 2009, p. 9). The competition by scientists to get support from the public only increased the risks from scientific inventions going wrong. The situation was so dire that some activists were even opposed to the idea of science being taught in schools. As a result, the public turned to self training and sought to be more scientifically conscious before suppurating any politically driven science. This was facilitated by the emergence of scientists who were in collaboration with community activists and based their arguments on facts. The current approach to science and democracy advocates for a more humane and ethical dimension that puts the needs of society first before engaging in any trials or experiments (Lagerspetz, 2012, p. 756). Conclusion The link between science and democracy has undergone a transformation throughout time. It is evident that democracy and science are intertwined in more than one way. The experience of democracy and science is based on values, attitudes, and opinions held in the eyes of the public. Society cannot live without science most of the advancement and comforts that are enjoyed today are as a result of scientific advancements that have evolved over time. The same scientific inventions have been a source of detriments and evils in society. For instance, war and pollution are heavily dependent on science. Democracy comes in when society has to make a choice on what is best for the public. Sometimes, science is so complex that public decisions are inadequately informed. It is further complicated by politicization of science as scientists seek to gain support and approval. It is evident that science will always shape democratic dimensions and democracy will always shape scientific ones as well. References Brown, M, 2009, Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions and representation, MIT Press. London. Che, Y, Lu, Tao, Z, & Wang, P, 2013, 'The impact of income on democracy revisited', Journal of Comparative Economics ,vol 41, no.1, pp. 159-169. Feenberg, A, 2009, Science, Technology and Democracy: Distinctions and Connections. London. Lagerspetz, E, 2012, 'Democracy', Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics , pp. 754-761. Wilson, D.J. 2013, "Science, Democracy, and the American University: From the Civil War to the Cold War", The Journal of American History, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 561. Read More