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:
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science – Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
Michael Collins
The Affirmative Action Silo
Andrew Levine
Tipping Points
Geoff Dutton
Fair and Balanced Opinion at the New York Times
Ajamu Baraka
Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez
David Rosen
The New McCarthyism: Is the Electric Chair Next for the Left?
Ken Levy
The McConnell Rule: Nasty, Brutish, and Unconstitutional
George Wuerthner
The Awful Truth About the Hammonds
Robert Fisk
Will Those Killed by NATO 19 Years Ago in Serbia Ever Get Justice?
Robert Hunziker
Three Climatic Monsters with Asteroid Impact
Ramzy Baroud
Europe’s Iron Curtain: The Refugee Crisis is about to Worsen
Nick Pemberton
A Letter For Scarlett JoManDaughter
Marilyn Garson
Netanyahu’s War on Transcendence 
Patrick Cockburn
Is ISIS About to Lose Its Last Stronghold in Syria?
Joseph Grosso
The Invisible Class: Workers in America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail