The author argues that science has always been intertwined with politics, using historical examples like the Manhattan Project and Lysenkoism to illustrate how scientific research is shaped by political agendas and funding priorities. They contend that the notion of "pure" science separate from political influence is a myth, and that acknowledging this inherent connection is crucial for understanding how science operates and its impact on society. The post emphasizes that recognizing the political dimension of science doesn't invalidate scientific findings, but rather provides a more complete understanding of the context in which scientific knowledge is produced and utilized.
In a blog post titled "Science is Political, and Always Has Been," published on November 15, 2024, author Joshua R. Hawley elaborates on the inherent intertwining of scientific endeavors with political structures and power dynamics throughout history. He argues against a perceived naive view that science operates within a politically neutral vacuum, asserting instead that science, by its very nature and due to its societal embeddedness, has always been subject to political influences and has, in turn, exerted influence upon the political landscape.
Hawley begins by highlighting the historical patronage of scientific research, demonstrating how throughout different eras, scientific advancements have been driven by and dependent upon the political and economic priorities of ruling powers, be they monarchs, religious institutions, or nation-states. He elucidates how the direction of scientific inquiry, the allocation of resources for research, and even the acceptance or suppression of scientific findings have often been shaped by the prevailing political ideologies and the agendas of those in power. He uses examples of historical figures like Archimedes, whose work was supported by the rulers of Syracuse for military purposes, and Galileo, whose astronomical observations challenged the politically powerful Catholic Church, to illustrate the consistent interaction between science and political authority.
The author then delves into the modern era, arguing that the relationship between science and politics has become even more complex and pronounced. He points to the significant role that governments play in funding scientific research, particularly in areas like medicine, defense, and space exploration, and emphasizes how this funding inevitably influences the types of research that are prioritized and pursued. Furthermore, Hawley underscores how scientific expertise is frequently sought after by policymakers to inform policy decisions, demonstrating how science becomes instrumental in shaping political actions and societal trajectories. He posits that the very act of selecting which scientific advisors to consult and which scientific evidence to privilege is inherently a political act, imbued with ideological considerations and influenced by power dynamics.
Finally, Hawley concludes that recognizing the inherent political dimension of science is not a call to dismiss or discredit scientific endeavors. Rather, he argues that understanding the interplay between science and politics is crucial for critically evaluating scientific claims and for promoting a more informed and nuanced public discourse surrounding scientific issues. He suggests that acknowledging the political context in which science operates allows for a more robust and transparent examination of the potential biases, motivations, and societal implications of scientific research. This awareness, he argues, is essential for fostering a more responsible and ethical application of scientific knowledge in the pursuit of human flourishing and societal progress.
Summary of Comments ( 3 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42911191
Hacker News users discuss the inherent link between science and politics, largely agreeing with the article's premise. Several commenters point out that funding, research direction, and the application of scientific discoveries are inevitably influenced by political forces. Some highlight historical examples like the Manhattan Project and the space race as clear demonstrations of science driven by political agendas. Others caution against conflating the process of science (ideally objective) with the uses of science, which are often political. A recurring theme is the concern over politicization of specific scientific fields, like climate change and medicine, where powerful interests can manipulate or suppress research for political gain. A few express worry that acknowledging the political nature of science might further erode public trust, while others argue that transparency about these influences is crucial for maintaining scientific integrity.
The Hacker News post "Science is political and always has been (2024)" generated a moderate number of comments, primarily discussing the interplay between science, politics, and funding. Several commenters agreed with the premise that science is inherently influenced by political factors, particularly concerning funding allocation and research prioritization.
One compelling line of discussion revolved around the idea that while the scientific method strives for objectivity, the actual practice of science occurs within a political context. This means decisions about which research receives funding, which scientific findings are emphasized, and how those findings are interpreted can be influenced by prevailing political ideologies and power structures. For instance, one commenter mentioned how historical scientific advancements were often tied to military applications, demonstrating a clear link between political agendas and scientific progress.
Another point raised was the politicization of specific scientific topics, such as climate change or public health measures. Commenters noted that scientific consensus can become contested terrain where different political actors selectively promote research that aligns with their views, leading to public confusion and mistrust in science itself.
Some commenters cautioned against conflating the inherent political context of science with the idea that scientific facts are subjective or merely opinions. They emphasized that while political factors can influence the direction and application of science, the scientific method itself remains a valuable tool for producing objective knowledge about the natural world. It was argued that recognizing the political influences on science is crucial for critically evaluating scientific claims and advocating for responsible research practices.
A few comments also touched upon the role of scientists in navigating the political landscape. Some suggested that scientists have a responsibility to engage with the public and policymakers to ensure that scientific findings are accurately communicated and utilized for the benefit of society. However, others expressed concerns about the potential for scientists to become overly politicized, which could undermine public trust in their objectivity.
While the discussion acknowledges the complexities of the relationship between science and politics, it generally leans toward accepting the premise that science operates within a political context, with commenters offering various perspectives on the implications of this reality.