FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Science Should Be Political

As we prepare for the March for Science, many are concerned that it will politicize what they see as an objective and neutral way of understanding the world. Famed cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, for instance, critiqued the March’s focus on discrimination and identity politics, and preferred that people focus on what’s under the microscope instead of who’s behind it. Others are concerned that lining up to oppose Trump polarizes public perceptions of science by setting it against the Republican Party.

A chorus of scientists and publications have responded that, regardless of what happens on the 22nd, science is political. Climate science has been the center of decades of political assault, while science education has been threatened and undermined for even longer. Government-funded research grants are by definition subject to politics, as are regulations concerning scientific practices. As scientists from Nicolaus Copernicus to Rachel Carson well knew, if your work threatens someone’s ideology, they will suppress it regardless of your public stance.

And we lose more than just an inspirational figure when research is suppressed. Human lives can be saved, and livelihoods enriched, by the implementation of scientific research into emissions reduction and ecological protection. The consequences of a heating planet only make the need for such action even stronger. It should thus be no surprise that Nature Magazine, among over 100 other organizations, supports the march.

Yet all of these arguments retain the instinct for an apolitical science. Science is portrayed as a saint’s relic, repelling dirt even when submerged in it. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it, “The science is not political. That’s like repealing gravity because you gained 10 pounds last week.” Meanwhile, neurologist Steven Novella concedes that “science has to be political… but should strive to remain non-partisan.” In other words, we must accept that politics has been mixed with science, but still hope that it can be driven out. The result is a sort of lab-coated Gnosticism, which holds that the spirit of discovery flies freely even as the vulgarity of modern politics weighs down the scientist’s corporeal form.

We imagine that once scientists have reversed this political climate change, they might return quietly to their labs. The problem isn’t just that scientists have been trying, and failing, to do so for centuries. The problem is that even the desire to separate science and politics will harm both.

Nothing is intrinsically political. Rather, as political theorist Hanna Pitkin has shown, what is political is itself decided by politics. And the process of politics is itself determined by its most powerful participants. Established interests have obvious reasons to suppress threats to their power, and it is no accident that disciplines with the most potential to determine our planet’s future are precisely those which are denied a fair public hearing. Exxon funded research into climate science in the 1970s, but declined to change anything except for its PR strategy. The science wasn’t political – it was made political.

The only way to avoid this trap is to avoid findings that are politically uncomfortable. Inoffensive discoveries that reinforce the status quo are much less likely to be targeted by partisan attacks, and studies that don’t ask important questions won’t be opposed by those who’d rather not answer them. Of course, this would just be another form of politicization – now inside the lab, instead of outside it.

After all, politicization is usually based on two things. Firstly, issues that pose fundamental choices about our planet’s future or are vitally important to people’s livelihoods become political. Secondly, issues that threaten to overturn established hierarchies will be made political by those at the top. “Political” issues therefore became that way due to a combination of their vital importance and their revolutionary potential. That’s why science should want to be political – because the alternative is to be irrelevant and static.

So it’s not true to say that science is hopelessly entangled in politics and our best bet is to loosen the strings. Instead, politics is as much a part of science as discovery is, and the antipathy of the comfortable should be one of its highest honors. Scientists shouldn’t tread lightly, afraid of ruffling feathers, but boldly, undaunted by unfounded critique. That’s not just good politics – it’s good science.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail