Long time no write.
I have gotten slack again and there is no excuse! That trip was 4 months ago for goodness sake but I am not interested in talking about that today. There's a three day weekend this weekend and I intend to send a lot of money home for my next trip so erm hopefully over the next 4 weeks I will be too poor to leave my hour and get organised studying and getting this blog up to date.
What I've been thinking about a lot lately, since someone close to me is working right at this interface as of late, is this idea that science can be affected by politics. People who know me know that I was one of the few crazies at my university to combine the two. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Microbiology with a Genetics minor and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Studies with no minor but certain an Asia-Pacific focus given my background and where I come from. But I do think that science and politics are topics that for all intents and purposes should remain seperate. However, as we all well know, from both history and the current series of debates regarding stem cell research and such like, will never be able to remain so for very long even if we were able to find some way to split them up. No matter how hard we try the are that couple that shouldn't be together but can't stop getting into each other's affairs.
To attest to this I'd like to point to Galileo, persecuted for heresy by the Catholic Church (no offence to my Catholic friends intends!), the major political (no matter how much they tried to deny it) power at the time. I recent times The Vatican has apologised for such short sighted accusations, but as often happens with science it takes a while for a hypothesis to become the accepted theory.
To further attest to this I'd also like to point to Sir Joseph Banks, botanist, head of the Royal Society in the late 18th century and champion of all who wished to pursue knowledge. He and his mates at the African Society (I'm not 100% sure that's what it was called) pushed exploration into the heart of Africa for knowledge gaining purposes. Unfortunately, the French and the King of England got involved and they had to change their stance on not exploring for political gain. Banks firmly believed that science needed to remain free of political influence but, sadly, was unable to shy away from the occasional use of public funds and/or prevent the use of knowledge, gained for the sake of knowledge, for political gain in the long run.
Throughout history those with the knowledge, especially in terms of Defence Science, have been able to control the political landscape. The man with the best ability to blow things up has the higher chance of getting the victory he seeks in war. This is something the Japanese can well understand, though they learned the hard way, and something that may or may not (depending on what side of the fence you sit) have led to the Cold War.
Then, of course, there comes public opinion, moratoria, the GMO debate, the Birth Control debate, the Abortion debate, the MSG debate (I sit in the anti camp on MSG, I think I might be allergic and am getting sick of becoming Ms Tomato Cheeks whenever I eat school lunch!), the euthanasia debate and many many others all of which spring from science developing the ability to do something that can be applied to real life.
Let's not also forget Climate Change. Whether a politician champions it or sticks their head in the sand they always have an opinion. I am a biologist so I shall make no statement here. I will say this, though, at the Polish research outpost, Arktowski Station on King George Island off the Antarctic Peninsula, I was told the the incredibly hospitable wife of the base commander that the bay used to freeze 4 of 5 winters, as at 2001/2002 New Year that figure stood at 1 in 5. At the up coming Copenhagen Conference I'd like to see the politicians and scientists present have productive dialogue but I remain unconvinced that even if a politician is personally convinced by the science that they will act according to that, they do after all have constituencies to answer to.
This whole thing is something that intrigues me.
I stand firmly in the camp that says "we should learn what we can". I also stand firmly in the camp that adds "within reason" to that line. But, who decides reason? How do they decide reason? Can reason be freed from human absurdity?
I find myself desperately hoping that the person who decides what the reasonable limit should be is not Pope Benedict XVI, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Yukio Hatoyama, Vladimir Putin, Helen Clark, Kevin Rudd, John Key or any other world politician.
I'd like to think that modern scientists are able to restrict themselves on what ultimately is ethical and where the line should be drawn. Unfortunately, though, I'm just not sure. Politics and science, like politics and religion, have played uncomfortably together for a very long time, I might even venture to say far to long. But as long as public funding is needed or the public has an opinion politics and science will continue to play together and fight with each other and indeed enhance the humour of each other.
But let's not forget that there is also politics within science, one of the most famous stouches being that between Rosalind Franklin and Watson and Crick who until late in their lives and long after her death refused to acknowledge publicly the role she played in the elucidation of the structure that gives us all life, DNA. But perhaps that is a story for another day.
The interplay that occurs between the two, science and politics, is something that fascinates me. Anyone wanting to offer me a Masters in it can feel free to pay me to do so. ;-P
I think for now though my ponderings shall remain ponderings because realistically I am not going to find any answers here just now am I? Though I suspect the answer is that it's not as strange a combo as one might think.
I hope you're all well.
My feet are cold so I'm off to stick them in a bowl of hot water to defrost them. :D
Rae
No comments:
Post a Comment