Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
HAVE YOUR DONATION DOUBLED!

If you are able to donate $100 or more for our Annual Fund Drive, your donation will be matched by another generous CounterPuncher! These are tough times. Regardless of the political rhetoric bantered about the airwaves, the recession hasn’t ended for most of us. We know that money is tight for many of you. But we also know that tens of thousands of daily readers of CounterPunch depend on us to slice through the smokescreen and tell it like is. Please, donate if you can!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Science Should Be Political

by

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
October 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth
Michael Hudson
Socialism, Land and Banking: 2017 Compared to 1917
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in the Life of CounterPunch
Paul Street
The Not-So-Radical “Socialist” From Vermont
Jason Hirthler
Censorship in the Digital Age
Jonathan Cook
Harvey Weinstein and the Politics of Hollywood
Andrew Levine
Diagnosing the Donald
Michelle Renee Matisons
Relocated Puerto Rican Families are Florida’s Latest Class War Targets
Richard Moser
Goldman Sachs vs. Goldman Sachs?
David Rosen
Male Sexual Violence: As American as Cherry Pie
Mike Whitney
John Brennan’s Police State USA
Robert Hunziker
Mr. Toxicity Zaps America
Peter Gelderloos
Catalan Independence and the Crisis of Democracy
Robert Fantina
Fatah, Hamas, Israel and the United States
Edward Curtin
Organized Chaos and Confusion as Political Control
Patrick Cockburn
The Transformation of Iraq: Kurds Have Lost 40% of Their Territory
CJ Hopkins
Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy
Bill Quigley
The Blueprint for the Most Radical City on the Planet
Brian Cloughley
Chinese Dreams and American Deaths in Africa
John Hultgren
Immigration and the American Political Imagination
Thomas Klikauer
Torturing the Poor, German-Style
Gerry Brown
China’s Elderly Statesmen
Pepe Escobar
Kirkuk Redux Was a Bloodless Offensive, Here’s Why
Jill Richardson
The Mundaneness of Sexual Violence
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
The Choreography of Human Dignity: Blade Runner 2049 and World War Z
Missy Comley Beattie
Bitch, Get Out!!
Andre Vltchek
The Greatest Indonesian Painter and “Praying to the Pig”
Ralph Nader
Why is Nobelist Economist Richard Thaler so Jovial?
Ricardo Vaz
Venezuela Regional Elections: Chavismo in Triumph, Opposition in Disarray and Media in Denial
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
NAFTA Talks Falter, Time To Increase Pressure
GD Dess
Why We Shouldn’t Let Hillary Haunt Us … And Why Having a Vision Matters
Ron Jacobs
Stop the Idiocy! Stop the Mattis-ness!
Russell Mokhiber
Talley Sergent Aaron Scheinberg Coca Cola Single Payer and the Failure of Democrats in West Virginia
Michael Barker
The Fiction of Kurt Andersen’s “Fantasyland”
Murray Dobbin
Yes, We Need to Tax the Rich
Dave Lindorff
Two Soviet Spies Who Deserve a Posthumous Nobel Peace Prize
Rafael Bernabe – Manuel Rodríguez Banchs
Open Letter to the People of the United States From Puerto Rico, a Month After Hurricane María
Oliver Tickell
#FreeJackLetts
Victor Grossman
From Jamaica to Knees
Michael Welton
Faith and the World: the Baha’i Vision
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Kirkuk the Consolation Prize?
Graham Peebles
Beyond Neo-Liberal Consumerism
Louis Proyect
On Gowans on Syria
Charles R. Larson
Review: Candida R. Moss and Joel S. Baden’s “Bible Nation: the United States of Hobby Lobby”
David Yearsley
Katy Perry’s Gastro-Pop, Gastro-Porn Orgy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail