Science to Society, Come In Society (politics as mediator?)

[Nereid]

The idea for this thread came from the recent responses to my question about https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=110026".

It also comes from this thread, about https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=109376".

My intent is to kick off some discussion and debate around the role of science in politics, and the extent to which scientists' voices are heard in the setting of (science) policy.

The basic idea is that politics (and policy) mediate between science and society, so the goal of all of us - scientists, non-scientists, members of societies, etc - is to optimise that mediation for effective and efficient realisation of wishes, desires, and hopes (and the alleviation of fears, pains, and suffering).

Science to Society, Come In Society!

… a rambling set of thoughts about what 'science' might want to say (or is trying to say) to society, in the hope that politics can find a way to facilitate the conversation, help reach mutual understanding, set realistic goals, and set us all on a path towards effective and efficient implementation.

Hey, "no man is an island", we know that individuals of Homo sap. don't do well alone, but this arrangement into nation states is pretty darn stupid - the woes and ills Nature can deliver, be they biological (e.g. SARS, avian flu), geological (e.g. earthquakes, global warming), or astronomical (e.g. asteroid impacts), respect no national, state or other boundaries. We also know that the bounties deliverable by Nature, be they biological (e.g. food crops, fish), geological (e.g. oil deposits), or astronomical (e.g. sunlight) are also invisible to such boundaries. Further, we know that efficient allocation of things that are scarce (which is everything we need, including water, air, and sunlight) is far, far better served by eliminating these silly boundaries (e.g. free trade in labour, goods, and services).

So what's with these boundaries, nation states, borders and other nonsense, Society? Why not take the rock-solid results we in Science have found, and deliver billions of individual Homo sap. individuals from hunger, sickness, unhappiness, and so on? Deliver them to wellness, happiness, etc?

What's that? What about values, ethics, morals, religion, and so on? Hey, Society, don't you know that we know where these things come from? Haven't you been reading what we've discovered, in Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, etc? OK, OK, so you go set the common desires, and we'll tell you where the internal inconsistencies are, what's readily achievable (at what cost) and what's not, and how you might go about getting there, OK?

Some of the gross inanities (or not - let's have a discussion) we can help you address are:

• You want well-being, both in body and mind (health and happiness), but why oh why do you persist with such crazy, wasteful practices as {insert your country's health-care policies and practices here}? We know how to efficiently distribute (new) knowledge to practitioners and deliverers, we know how to set up systems that do a very good job of ensuring efficiency in delivery, etc. We even know how to tailor messages to suit the brain-wiring of Homo sap. individuals, recognising the overlaps and gaps between such wiring and the way the real world actually works.
• You want your children and grand-children to eat fish; to be able to enjoy forests and rivers and mountains, drink cheap, clean water; etc. Buy why oh why do you persist in such crazy, destructive (to your wishes) practices as unrestricted fishing in non-territorial oceans? Destruction of wetlands? Felling of forests for toothpicks and paper? We know how to 'set the switches' of policy so as to encourage the maximisation of the long-term attainment of these goals
• You want to be able to continue to treat (some) illnesses cheaply, effectively, and quickly. But why oh why do you persist in such counter-productive practices as feeding livestock antibiotics? Of not implementing effective treatment regimes for marginal members of society (drug users, the homeless, minorities)? Of penalising your poorer society members when they seek cures for their (treatable) illnesses (do you know that if you don't cure them, it'll be only a matter of little time before you, Mr RichMan, may be infected with a resistant form of that same bug?)
• You don't want to have to 'clean up' disasters such as Katrina/New Orleans, Sumatra tsunami, Kobe earthquake; you'd rather 'get ready' ahead of time (sure you can't control a hurricane, or predict an earthquake, but you can get ready to deal with the consequences). But why oh why do you persist in ignoring what we've told you a hundred times over? What's so impossible to understand as the technology of "importance = probability times impact"?

And then there's the long term. All the things you so love about what science delivered - computers, medicines, cars, TV, warm comfortable and safe houses, the internet, books - came from application of the scientific method, and pure research. We can't say what the pure research of today will deliver to you, your children or your grandchildren; we can say that if you stop the pure research, the cornucopia for wonders will stop, one day.

OK, so superconducting supercolliders are expensive, and sometimes some scientists do really, really stupid things, and our internal processes and procedures (peer-review, theory generation, etc) aren't perfect and could be improved. But why don't you talk with us about how to do a better job? Why not discuss with us how to set priorities? How to allocate budgets? What good ways to raise funds are??

Society to Science, Come In Science!

{someone else's turn}

Scientists are members of Society, Aren't they?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It would seem that in America science is no longer very popular. Science too often is seen as the source of many "evils".
Automation is responsable for the loss of jobs.
There are ethical quandries involving cloning.
There is a problem with radioactive waste because of nuclear reactors.
World wide ramifications of WMDs such as nukes and biologicals.
Insanely high prices for health care because of lobbies like the pharmecutical companies.
The supposed dangers of genetically engineered crops.
Ect ect...
I think that one of the major things that disillusions people about science is the fast paced advancement. You're average citizen not only can't understand most of it but when they try they can't keep up because of constant changes.

Education is really the root issue in my opinion. The people need to be prepared for understanding these issues and they aren't.

 

[Bystander]

The idea for this thread came from the recent responses to my question about https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=110026".

It also comes from this thread, about https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=109376".

Quick administrative suggestion: lock 'em, and point people to this thread. They aren't finished, and they aren't going to be finished if new threads on the same question keep starting.

My intent is to kick off some discussion and debate around the role of science in politics, and the extent to which scientists' voices are heard in the setting of (science) policy.

The "role" is proportional to the "scientific literacy rate" outside the scientific community; that is, near zero.

The basic idea is that politics (and policy) mediate between science and society, so the goal of all of us - scientists, non-scientists, members of societies, etc - is to optimise that mediation for effective and efficient realisation of wishes, desires, and hopes (and the alleviation of fears, pains, and suffering).

If the scientific community is depending upon "politics" to "mediate" with the rest of the world, we're not headed for a dark age, we're in it.

(snip)

Not going to "point by point" until this thread takes a direction.

 

[SOS2008]

I agree with TSA about education.

When our government manipulates scientific documents, such as reports on global warming, there is no public questioning or outrage. Everything has been "dumbed down," whether the media or even our political leaders. American society has become spoiled, lazy and self-centered. They are interested in how they can obtain more and more material things with the least amount of work possible. They only care about their daily lives as it relates to these material things, including entertainment. They know a lot about sports, movies, work gossip, etc., but couldn't tell you a thing about science except how to text message. They think science and even politics are just for geeks--I've had people make fun of me because I didn't know the answers in a T.V. trivia game. I often ask people what difference will it make who won a Grammy or Oscar, or even an Olympic medal in comparison to food, water, air, fuel, safety, medical care, etc. In the meantime I pay extra to get the science channel, and donate to PBS when I can. Our priorities are so out of whack.

Last night I watched a program where a teacher took his young students on a field trip. He took them out on a boat to collect methane from the bottom of a river. At first the children didn't seem very engaged, but as they began to participate and saw they could produce fire they became very interested. This is just one of many examples. We need teachers that cultivate, and not just regurgitate--especially since most parents are too busy being shallow. And it needs to start as early in life as possible.

The first step is to put an end to the influence peddling by lobbyists/special interests by making campaigns equal via public announcement debates. Then we would be more likely to reduce spending on political agendas that produce nothing of value to society. Then hopefully there would be more funds available for education. I don't know how the public and politicians can be convinced of the importance of education (and spending on education). Unfortunately the current administration likes the masses to be ignorant just like the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages--all the better to manipulate.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Hmm...so science translated into policy = leftism? I must've missed the boat on that one, somewhere around psychology, OR/ILR, and evolutionary biology. But that's just the RWA in me talking.

 

[Pengwuino]

This OP sounds a lot like 'having your cake and eating it too'. It sounds like strict communism and i honestly feel like the distribution of resources would fall short of what people expect it to be. I mean think how improbable it is for a government to basically provided a utopia for everyone while having their resource allocations slashed as per the 2nd idea in this thread. Think of it as... hell, what my university seems to be trying to do. They want to increase enrollment, more class time, more tutoring time and they want to cut funds and work cheaper and "more efficient". Well so far its a nice disaster and all...

Hopefully it could work in a global sense... but i have a feeling there are simply too many people to allow this to happen. It becomes a bigger problem when you're using market economies. We want free health care, cars that produce honey as exaust, freedom to do anything and everything we want... and some people seem to think such a day dream is possible on a global scale. Does anyone think we could just allow copies of LA (technology-wise) to be popping up around the world for 6 billion people?

Maybe 1, not 6.

 

[crazycalhoun]

So what's with these boundaries, nation states, borders and other nonsense, Society? Why not take the rock-solid results we in Science have found, and deliver billions of individual Homo sap. individuals from hunger, sickness, unhappiness, and so on? Deliver them to wellness, happiness, etc?

What's that? What about values, ethics, morals, religion, and so on? Hey, Society, don't you know that we know where these things come from? Haven't you been reading what we've discovered, in Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, etc? OK, OK, so you go set the common desires, and we'll tell you where the internal inconsistencies are, what's readily achievable (at what cost) and what's not, and how you might go about getting there, OK?

I did want to respond to this point, since it raises the social sciences and evolutionary biology in the context of policy judgements. Social science theories are highly conditionalize against a variety of operating definitions (to the nth degree of precision in demographics, geography, history, etc.)--let's not even get into the study of scientific communities and their practices. To a lesser extent evolutionary biology suffers from this lack of universal explanatory and predictive power. As such, it strikes me as a bit ...off to sum up the process of crafting a better society in such a short treatise.

 

[RVBuckeye]

I'll play along...

Society to Science, Come In Science!

How much do you need to know to implement this? Knowledge for knowledge sake is a lot of money. Would there ever be an end to science exploration in leu of science implementation?

 

[alexandra]

My intent is to kick off some discussion and debate around the role of science in politics, and the extent to which scientists' voices are heard in the setting of (science) policy.

Great stuff, Nereid! Now we’re talking… This is exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping would occur on the PF politics boards, and here it is!

Hey, "no man is an island", we know that individuals of Homo sap. don't do well alone, but this arrangement into nation states is pretty darn stupid - the woes and ills Nature can deliver, be they biological (e.g. SARS, avian flu), geological (e.g. earthquakes, global warming), or astronomical (e.g. asteroid impacts), respect no national, state or other boundaries. We also know that the bounties deliverable by Nature, be they biological (e.g. food crops, fish), geological (e.g. oil deposits), or astronomical (e.g. sunlight) are also invisible to such boundaries. Further, we know that efficient allocation of things that are scarce (which is everything we need, including water, air, and sunlight) is far, far better served by eliminating these silly boundaries (e.g. free trade in labour, goods, and services).

So what's with these boundaries, nation states, borders and other nonsense, Society?

I totally agree. As a person who has formally studied political science (that is my own specialist field), the political science equivalent of what you speak of here is internationalism – the eradication of artificial borders in favour of a united social entity, humanity.

Why not take the rock-solid results we in Science have found, and deliver billions of individual Homo sap. individuals from hunger, sickness, unhappiness, and so on? Deliver them to wellness, happiness, etc?

Who are the hungry and the sick? They are the poor. Profit cannot be made out of the poor. So the only conclusion I can reach, as a social scientist, is that a socio-political economic system set up to benefit the rich will never look after Homo sapiens, only Rich Homo sapiens. The motivation in the current socio-economic system is not the betterment of humanity: it is private profit.

What's that? What about values, ethics, morals, religion, and so on?

What are those? Capitalist ‘ethics’: look after ‘number one’. Individualism, greed, private profit. Remember what ‘the bottom line’ is – and all must be sacrificed towards that end. That is the ethos of capitalism. In other words, there is no morality, there are no values, there are no ethics – other than the worship of the Almighty Dollar.

Hey, Society, don't you know that we know where these things come from? Haven't you been reading what we've discovered, in Psychology, Evolutionary Biology, etc? OK, OK, so you go set the common desires, and we'll tell you where the internal inconsistencies are, what's readily achievable (at what cost) and what's not, and how you might go about getting there, OK?

Nereid, I am constantly embroiled in ‘nature-versus-nurture’ arguments on this issue. Many on these forums (and elsewhere) argue with me that it is ‘human nature’ to be greedy and selfish – ie. that capitalism is ‘wired into’ who humans are. As a social scientist, and as a practising teacher and just as an observant member of the human race, I cannot agree with this: there is too much evidence to the contrary. The whole debate boils down to this one issue: whether or not capitalism and greed is ‘in the genes’. I have developed my own views on this matter over years of reading and experience, but the forces acting against this view (the propaganda people are subjected to about this issue) is so overwhelming, I am unable to break through it when trying to discuss the issue with people who are so brainwashed they will not question… It’s very frustrating.

Some of the gross inanities (or not - let's have a discussion) we can help you address are:

• You want well-being, both in body and mind (health and happiness), but why oh why do you persist with such crazy, wasteful practices as {insert your country's health-care policies and practices here}? We know how to efficiently distribute (new) knowledge to practitioners and deliverers, we know how to set up systems that do a very good job of ensuring efficiency in delivery, etc.

• Who benefits from such crazy, wasteful practices? That is the question. Because, as mentioned in another thread on health, even though ordinary people lose out (get sick, die, etc), big pharmaceutical companies (and health insurance companies, etc) benefit. Again, what is the obstacle to human well-being and progress? Greed, the desire to maximise private profit….in a word, capitalism.
  
  

  You want your children and grand-children to eat fish; to be able to enjoy forests and rivers and mountains, drink cheap, clean water; etc. Buy why oh why do you persist in such crazy, destructive (to your wishes) practices as unrestricted fishing in non-territorial oceans? Destruction of wetlands? Felling of forests for toothpicks and paper? We know how to 'set the switches' of policy so as to encourage the maximisation of the long-term attainment of these goals

  But as a CEO, I want to make money for my shareholders NOW (who cares about tomorrow?). As a shareholder, I want to make money NOW (again, who cares about children, grandchildren, etc? The Almighty Dollar… now).
  
  

  But why oh why do you persist in such counter-productive practices as feeding livestock antibiotics?

  They get fatter more quickly, more of them survive in seemingly good health (with a bit of manipulation of research findings from relevant food authority agencies) and I can make more profits, of course! And that’s all that counts: my profit-maximisation.
  

  Of not implementing effective treatment regimes for marginal members of society (drug users, the homeless, minorities)?

  Who’ll pay? They’re useless anyway – not worth saving… After all, anyone who doesn't have a job is personally responsible for being in that position: they're lazy, ne'er do wells who want to just laze around all day drinking beer and lolling about in the gutter. If they don't want to work and pay health insurance, if they want to take drugs, if they want to be loser members of minority groups, it's their own fault.
  
  DISCLAIMER: Note, all – I am ‘speaking aloud’ as a capitalist in the last few paragraphs above (when I speak as a 'capitalist'); I do not personally hold these opinions! I just thought I’d point this out before someone misunderstands me and thinks I could possibly hold such ‘values’. Anyway, I could answer the rest – but a bit of thinking will demonstrate that all my answers would be as above. This is why I truly believe that unless humanity evolves a social structure that is more egalitarian and humane than capitalism, humanity is doomed to extinction. Politics is everything.

 

[alexandra]

You have a "context" in mind --- care to expound upon it?

Ok - the context, as I see it, is a world gone mad:
* environmental devastation (probably catastrophic and irreversible) threatens and scientific reports warning of this are being stifled or falsified by politicians;
* the intellectual work of leading scientific minds is being used to develop new weapons of mass destruction (whether these be nuclear, chemical, or whatever) instead of being used to develop sustainable solutions to the many problems faced by humanity (eg. environmental degradation, the evolution of drug-resistant diseases, energy sources, malnutrition, etc);
* the use of religious dogma to counter and discredit scientific thinking at a time when science is most needed to find solutions to the problems mentioned above… In brief, that is what I meant by ‘context’. As leading members of society, and as people who have a lot of specialist knowledge (and therefore a lot of power, potentially), I think scientists should realize that they have a grave social responsibility and that it is their social duty to speak on behalf of humanity appropriately when issues arise in their line of work that will affect not only humans who are alive now but future generations as well. Sorry if I’m not saying this very clearly – but I hope you get the general idea of what I meant….

 

[SOS2008]

My original thought was that it would be nice if science protected society from politics. Perhaps scientists could form a political party with a pro-science platform.

 

[loseyourname]

It would seem that in America science is no longer very popular. Science too often is seen as the source of many "evils".
Automation is responsable for the loss of jobs.
There are ethical quandries involving cloning.
There is a problem with radioactive waste because of nuclear reactors.
World wide ramifications of WMDs such as nukes and biologicals.
Insanely high prices for health care because of lobbies like the pharmecutical companies.
The supposed dangers of genetically engineered crops.
Ect ect...
I think that one of the major things that disillusions people about science is the fast paced advancement. You're average citizen not only can't understand most of it but when they try they can't keep up because of constant changes.

Education is really the root issue in my opinion. The people need to be prepared for understanding these issues and they aren't.

To add to this, the biggest source of this misperception is the identification of science with technology. I'm no technophobe, but what attracted me to science as a youth was the ability it had to uncover knowledge about the natural world, and that was mostly it. I wanted a better rapport with my world achieved through sensitive understanding, not "better living through chemistry." There is a great deal of intellectual pleasure that can be found through the grasping of nature's mechanics that is not achieved by simply switching on a machine that upsets the apple cart for as many people as it helps. When your only exposure to science is through its practical applications, you're not getting much of a view.

 

[Bystander]

Ok - the context, as I see it, is a world gone mad:

Always been that way, and always going to be that way. People aren't rational. It remains a contextual factor, but don't expect it to change.

* environmental devastation (probably catastrophic and irreversible) threatens and scientific reports warning of this are being stifled or falsified by politicians;

Scientific literature is open. Abstractions, digests, and confabulations of the scientific literature are products of the popular press and media, seldom reflect the content of the original literature, and useless for purposes of informed discussion or decision. You want a discussion on GW, say so, and we'll go to Earth Sciences.

* the intellectual work of leading scientific minds is being used to develop new weapons of mass destruction (whether these be nuclear, chemical, or whatever) instead of being used to develop sustainable solutions to the many problems faced by humanity (eg. environmental degradation, the evolution of drug-resistant diseases, energy sources, malnutrition, etc);

Social choice of uses to which information is to be put is not scientific choice, it's never informed choice, and neither possible remedy is acceptable to the two groups concerned, the scientific community and the rest of the world, that all scientific inquiry be suspended, or that a "scientocracy" be established.

* the use of religious dogma to counter and discredit scientific thinking at a time when science is most needed to find solutions to the problems mentioned above… In brief, that is what I meant by ‘context’. As leading members of society, and as people who have a lot of specialist knowledge (and therefore a lot of power, potentially), I think scientists should realize that they have a grave social responsibility and that it is their social duty to speak on behalf of humanity appropriately when issues arise in their line of work that will affect not only humans who are alive now but future generations as well. Sorry if I’m not saying this very clearly – but I hope you get the general idea of what I meant….

I've highlighted what I think is the gist of this paragraph, that you want scientific leadership that takes orders rather than making decisions. Am I reading that correctly?

 

[alexandra]

I've highlighted what I think is the gist of this paragraph, that you want scientific leadership that takes orders rather than making decisions. Am I reading that correctly?

Oh no, I meant quite the opposite, Bystander. I think scientists should not be blindly following orders - they should be questioning and, when necessary, arguing against the policies of decision-makers (the politicians) when these decisions are not in the long-term interests of humanity. Most people not trained in the sciences cannot understand either the science/technology or how it will/can be used - that is why scientists themselves should (in my opinion) advocate on their behalf.

I can see that in a way, I could be accused of arguing for a kind of 'priesthood' of scientists in my above statements. Instead of Plato's 'philosopher king', I guess I could be accused of being elitist and arguing for the rule of the 'philosopher scientist'. But I have chosen my words very carefully: I wrote that scientists should be "...questioning and, when necessary, arguing against the policies of decision-makers..." - not that they should themselves 'rule'. It boils down to the problem Einstein faced when he was asked to co-sign and present the letter re- the atomic bomb to President Roosevelt - he did not take the decision lightly, and after WWII he chaired the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists and campaigned actively for nuclear disarmament. He understood that this weapon could be used to damage humanity, so as well as being a scientist Einstein seemed to have felt a social duty to also enter the political arena and argue for what he perceived to be the long-term interests of ordinary people.

EDIT: Perhaps you did not mean 'scientists' when you wrote 'scientific leadership'? I'm not sure what you meant by 'scientific leadership' - in any case, the above is my position/opinion. It is just an opinion, though. I may be missing something that someone else sees - some flaw in my argument. No doubt it will be pointed out to me soon enough.

 

[dsky]

Devlopment Of HUman Soceity

Wow this is a new start for Humanity
Good comments Alexandra, we need ure inputs to evntually map a working set of solutions for the problems of this world. Whats the use of this site if nothing good evers comes out.Sorry to other experts out there, but I encouarage all to spend their brain power to make this one work. Let's Start by Creating threads for d list below where inputs can be collected and studied and refined, the output will be A global policy that can be taken to the UNITED NATIONS ( I am not sure why they exist any way,perhaps only to the interest of G8 or whatever)
1. Internationalism, another tems could be Globalism or Earthanism.( with its main principle)
2. Economic System ( Less greedy capitalism, peaceful humane communism and others such as my "FREE ECONOMY" principle can be combined to create a better system. ECONOMICS Experts are needed in this area)
3. Global Religion( while each had considered others as "HEATHENS" they had not entirely wiped each other out , so there's HOPE )
4. Education ( free access to Knowledge that is beneficial i& identify what type of behaivior that will eliminate the "survival of the fittest mindset and still have a healthy sense of "SELF" as one advisor had Inputted )
5. Science and Technology ( resource allocation & contribution to conduct research for envronmentally safe energy source. free distribution & implementation of results.
6. others that will promote PEACE, HAPINESS, and LOVE.

(i don't know why they had to lock my thread,but it seems that somebody is not willing to cooperate.)
I don't want to create an atmosphre of SARCASM, just only want clear views and opinions.
Thank You
Finally let us Share Love with One another.

 

[Bystander]

Oh no, I meant quite the opposite, Bystander. I think scientists should not be blindly following orders - they should be questioning and, when necessary, arguing against the policies of decision-makers (the politicians) when these decisions are not in the long-term interests of humanity.

Every action, decision, policy has undesirable consequences. Social choices are made between taking an action and accepting its consequences, or another action and its, or no action and the consequences of no action, be the consequences identified and understood, or not. The resources do not exist within the scientific community to "live the lives" of six billion people by making all their choices for them. We're going to have to work on narrowing the scope of this problem statement.

Most people not trained in the sciences cannot understand either the science/technology or how it will/can be used - that is why scientists themselves should (in my opinion) advocate on their behalf.

I don't think you mean that the members of the scientific community are to appoint themselves as a representative body in a three way power struggle among public, politicians, and scientists. Further, I don't think you are implying that there are "best choices" that are discernible only to members of the scientific community. Can you work up a restatement?

I can see that in a way, I could be accused of arguing for a kind of 'priesthood' of scientists in my above statements. Instead of Plato's 'philosopher king', I guess I could be accused of being elitist and arguing for the rule of the 'philosopher scientist'. But I have chosen my words very carefully: I wrote that scientists should be "...questioning and, when necessary, arguing against the policies of decision-makers..." - not that they should themselves 'rule'. It boils down to the problem Einstein faced when he was asked to co-sign and present the letter re- the atomic bomb to President Roosevelt - he did not take the decision lightly, and after WWII he chaired the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists and campaigned actively for nuclear disarmament. He understood that this weapon could be used to damage humanity, so as well as being a scientist Einstein seemed to have felt a social duty to also enter the political arena and argue for what he perceived to be the long-term interests of ordinary people.

Einstein, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Teller --- four different people --- four different sets of opinions (scientific, practical, personal, and political) on nuclear weapons. Hitler and Stalin --- sociopaths, psychopaths, megalomaniacs, or patriots? Definitely threats to the rest of the world. What sort of scientific advice should be given toward dealing with such situations as they presented as far as pursuit of nuclear weapons development? Einstein and Szilard couldn't make up their minds. Oppie went nuts (or nutser), "Oh my god, what have I done." Teller kept his personal opinions out of things, and far as I recall his political opinions as well --- may have been the odd comments about Hitler's and Stalin's personalities and intentions. Pick your expert and play the "what if" history game. Which set of unintended consequences would you prefer to be experiencing today?

EDIT: Perhaps you did not mean 'scientists' when you wrote 'scientific leadership'? I'm not sure what you meant by 'scientific leadership' (snip)

You "grok." Bad habit from English classes, "Vary your word usage to keep the reader interested," got in the road of using "scientocracy" twice in the same sentence, paragraph, or whatever.

 

[SOS2008]

I've brought this up many times in regard to the conservative, and in particular religious trends in the U.S. And I heard a derogatory remark against intellectuals again on the news last night. So I started looking for sources that discuss this trend. I found a few, but first this:

In the media

In the 2000 Presidential Election, the media (particularly late night comics) portrayed Candidate Al Gore as boring "brainiac" who spoke in a monotonous voice and jabbered on about numbers and figures that no one could understand. It was also widely reported - erroneously - that Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet. It was the classic stereotype of a pompous, out-of-touch intellectual, and this perception arguably hurt Gore in the election. In the years since, debate between the left and right in America has often centered on the relation of the intellectual class to the public as a whole.

Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh commonly argue that conservative politicians, particularly Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have been unjustly attacked by a liberal media as being "incompetent" - this can be understood as an accusation of intellectual snobbery by the media. O'Reilly in particular is well known for having a hostile attitude towards what he calls the "Ivy League Elite." The word "intellectual" itself has been used as an insult by many on the right.

Both O'Reilly and Limbaugh, as well as other conservative hosts such as Tucker Carlson, and Joe Scarborough, are frequently accused of having anti-intellectual atmospheres on their shows, evidenced by their frequent interruption of guests who try to put forward complex arguments. Scarborough once commented that "If my guest is allowed to speak uninterrupted for more than 15 seconds, then I'm not doing my job".

While some on the left claim this represents a right-wing bias in the American media, other analysts feel it merely shows that the media, in the service of higher ratings, has a tendency to promote argument and spectacle rather than informed debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Anti-intellectualism_in_the_United_States

Interesting that Scarborough would be mentioned above, as it was his program I was watching last night when the derogatory remark was made (Note: this was on MSNBC, not FOX News). Other sources:

"Bridging the Communication Gap Between the Science and Non-Science Worlds" - http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:fY2lP5IXCjgJ:www.scienceandtechnologynetwork.ca/Preston.pdf+Bridging+The+Gap+Between+Scientist+And+Politician&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

A review:

Science and politics
WAYNE HUNT, professor of politics, Mount Allison University

Sackville, N.B. -- In trying to bridge the gap between scientist and politician, Preston Manning may open up some others (Bridging The Gap Between Scientist And Politician -- Feb. 21). He attacks the "left-wing, anti-market, anti-free trade, anti-American intellectuals obsessed with political correctness and generally hostile to conservative thinking and policy positions" to be found in the social sciences and the humanities even as he lauds some of the "sharpest minds in the country" found in science, engineering and medicine and in the business faculties. I thought the role of higher education was to question assumptions about the organization of society in order to build a sense of citizenship, not to reinforce stereotypes. The irony of this point seems to be lost on Mr. Manning. Let us hope that it is not lost on the priorities of the government he hopes to influence.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060222.LETTERS22-11/TPStory/Comment


The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics by Mark Lilla

A review:

by Stoekl, Allan
The Johns Hopkins University Press

Excerpt:

Lilla is a professor at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago, and faithfully carries on the neo-conservative, neo-Straussian tradition one associates with that institution. Thus each of these philosopher-social critics is treated to a reading that attempts to station itself outside the usual respectful stance taken by commentators. For Lilla is not concerned, really, with the complexities of these thinkers—indeed the readings would lead one [End Page 89] to conclude that these disparate authorities are, in the end, remarkably similar in their temptations and intellectual misdeeds. Rather his concern, as revealed fully in the afterword, is with the elaboration of a stance that was called most elegantly, by Jean Paulhan, the prévision du passé. Other terms for it, perhaps more familiar, are "20/20 hindsight" and "Monday morning quarterbacking." The thesis, simply put, is this: the intellectual (as opposed to the...

http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/south_central_review/v021/21.2stoekl.html

Unfortunately the current trend in our society is anti-intellectual, often from the left as well as the right. And even the scientific/intellectual community seems unable to get along with one another. It has been an increasingly divisive world, thanks in part to the great uniter (sarcasm) in leadership of our government at present.

 

[BobG]

This OP sounds a lot like 'having your cake and eating it too'. It sounds like strict communism and i honestly feel like the distribution of resources would fall short of what people expect it to be. I mean think how improbable it is for a government to basically provided a utopia for everyone while having their resource allocations slashed as per the 2nd idea in this thread. Think of it as... hell, what my university seems to be trying to do. They want to increase enrollment, more class time, more tutoring time and they want to cut funds and work cheaper and "more efficient". Well so far its a nice disaster and all...

Hopefully it could work in a global sense... but i have a feeling there are simply too many people to allow this to happen. It becomes a bigger problem when you're using market economies. We want free health care, cars that produce honey as exaust, freedom to do anything and everything we want... and some people seem to think such a day dream is possible on a global scale. Does anyone think we could just allow copies of LA (technology-wise) to be popping up around the world for 6 billion people?

Maybe 1, not 6.

I agree. It sounds like a very centrally managed type of program that would slow science.

On the other hand, when advances occur randomly and chaotically, it can cause as many problems as it solves - science develops methods of providing seemingly unilimited cheap electrical power but forgot to include a method of disposing of the waste; science invents cures for diseases that extend the average lifetime but forgot to increase the amount of food and drinkable water available; science invents methods of producing food quickly, but overlooked the fact that the method makes its cures for diseases less effective (wow, that's almost self-balancing).

A little slower, more well thought out progress wouldn't be such a bad thing, but, as Pengwuino noted, implementation would almost certainly fall short of expectations. I think we're almost chained to the idea of taking progress as it comes and reacting to it after the fact, once we realize what we've done.

For one thing, people will have different ideas of what science should accomplish. Is increasing the average lifespan the most significant accomplishment or is improving the quality of the average person's short lifespan more important? (i.e. - does the quantitative or the qualitative take priority?)

 

[Nereid]

13 replies in less than a week, to my maiden¹ thread in P&WA, wow! (Now if only I could generate that much interest in my 'home territory', Astronomy and Cosmology)

To expand a little on the 'politics as mediator' idea, with an example of (and from) public health policy (and implementation).

Smallpox is gone, and polio was nearly gone. How did that happen? The biological 'facts' didn't do the virus in. Nor did the writing of scientific papers about the effects of the virus on Homo sap., nor the writing of scientific papers about vaccines, nor ... Individuals of the species Homo sap. did not read scientific papers, build a lab in their homes, produce vaccines, and administer them; Chairmen (they're all men, right?) of political parties did not declare 'this one's going to get us the next election!'; you and your family did not read the scientific literature and decide to seek out a lab that had developed vaccines; ...

Smallpox is gone because politics mediated between Science and Society.

Polio was following smallpox, with politics once again mediating between Science and Society, but then http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3521780.stm" - politics ceased to be able to mediate (or perhaps Society Struck Back!).

Smallpox and polio are just two of the many hundreds (thousands?) of nasty infectious diseases to which Homo sap. is susceptible. Some such diseases (e.g. SARS) cause a huge fright, kill dozens (maybe hundreds), and are tamed (to some extent). Some (e.g. malaria) kill millions, don't rate anything more than "travellers' advisories" and are anything but tamed.

Wherefore the difference?

The Science inputs to polio, malaria, and hundreds of other infectious diseases is no different - at the level I'm talking about here - than that for smallpox.

The clearly articulated, backed up twenty-seven ways to Sunday with data, studies, charts, equations, and all the other paraphenalia of Science, case for "terminating, with extreme prejudice' polio/malaria/etc" is just as compelling (if not more so) than that for smallpox.

The delivery protocols, marketing messages, cost/benefit studies, etc, etc, etc are just as solid and applicable for polio and malaria as they are for smallpox.

And so on.

So how come politics is quite capable of 'mediating' in one case, but has dismally failed in others?

And how can we get a vigourous discussion going on what Science needs to do to be more successful with polio and malaria (and ...)?

And who are the representatives of Society, to tell Science, via the mediation of politics, just how ridiculous/utopian/radical/revolutionary/playing-into-the-hands-of-terrorists/etc the inane mutterings from Science truly are?

(to be continued)

¹Well, maiden with content!

 

[Nereid]

It would seem that in America science is no longer very popular. Science too often is seen as the source of many "evils".
Automation is responsable for the loss of jobs.
There are ethical quandries involving cloning.
There is a problem with radioactive waste because of nuclear reactors.
World wide ramifications of WMDs such as nukes and biologicals.
Insanely high prices for health care because of lobbies like the pharmecutical companies.
The supposed dangers of genetically engineered crops.
Ect ect...
I think that one of the major things that disillusions people about science is the fast paced advancement. You're average citizen not only can't understand most of it but when they try they can't keep up because of constant changes.

So clearly politics has failed in its role of mediation ... for all the perceived negatives (your list), not a single positive? How many of those who live in the US would cheerfully give up their internet? their medicines? their computers (both obvious and invisible)? their cars (gasp! CARS are the product of SCIENCE?)? their houses? their surgical procedures? their bank accounts? their credit cards (did I just win the argument?)? their cheap flights to Mexico/Alaska/Hawaii/?

How did it come to pass that politics happily mediated the good bits but shafted Science with the bad?

Education is really the root issue in my opinion. The people need to be prepared for understanding these issues and they aren't.

And what of the 95%+ of folk who do NOT live in the US?

 

[Nereid]

This OP sounds a lot like 'having your cake and eating it too'. It sounds like strict communism and i honestly feel like the distribution of resources would fall short of what people expect it to be.

Thanks Pengwuino.

I haven't got onto that part of Science which wears the scarlet brand ECONOMICS yet.

When I do, you'll see that your comments are about as far from what I want to say about politics mediating between Science and Society as it is possible to be

I mean think how improbable it is for a government to basically provided a utopia for everyone while having their resource allocations slashed as per the 2nd idea in this thread. Think of it as... hell, what my university seems to be trying to do. They want to increase enrollment, more class time, more tutoring time and they want to cut funds and work cheaper and "more efficient". Well so far its a nice disaster and all...

Hey, there's more than one way to skin a cat!

Let me throw this out for discussion - since when did 'politics' equate to 'government'?

Hopefully it could work in a global sense... but i have a feeling there are simply too many people to allow this to happen. It becomes a bigger problem when you're using market economies. We want free health care, cars that produce honey as exaust, freedom to do anything and everything we want... and some people seem to think such a day dream is possible on a global scale. Does anyone think we could just allow copies of LA (technology-wise) to be popping up around the world for 6 billion people?

Maybe 1, not 6.

Ah, the 'Club of Rome' pessimism?

Suggestion: plug in "Amory Lovins" in your Google, click on some links, and read.

Or, if you're more into the physics/chemistry/whatever, can you estimate just how inefficient (choose your own, physics-based, definition) any of the major 'bottlenecks' (to 6, not 1) are? (HINT: which car model (US) sales exceeded the manufacturer's wildest dreams?)

 

[loseyourname]

I have to admit that at this point I have no idea what it is that you're suggesting. What exactly do you mean by "politics" mediating between science and society? There is no person or group of persons called "politics," and only persons can be mediators. Is there any less abstract way in which you can say the specific persons that you wish to do the mediating and exactly what you want them to do? After all, "mediation" can mean anything from helping to resolve a legal dispute to simply relaying an unaltered message.

 

[Nereid]

I have to admit that at this point I have no idea what it is that you're suggesting. What exactly do you mean by "politics" mediating between science and society? There is no person or group of persons called "politics," and only persons can be mediators. Is there any less abstract way in which you can say the specific persons that you wish to do the mediating and exactly what you want them to do? After all, "mediation" can mean anything from helping to resolve a legal dispute to simply relaying an unaltered message.

I'm trying to get a discussion going, about three 'players', Science (the hard-won results of the application of scientific methods; such results include, of course, uncertainty, and some potentially very discomforting findings about the nature of Homo sap. the species and what gives rise to the behaviour of individuals of this species), Society (the individuals of the species Homo sap., and their collective behaviour, particularly - impossibly - without Science inputs), and politics.

Science doesn't do anything; people (individually and collectively) do. To what extent is (can? should?) politics a means (mediator, facilitator, implementor, ...) of doing something with Science (to, for, on behalf of, ... Society)? If you, LYN, wish to go to the Moon (or, more realistically, want to see some fellow Homo sap. individuals return to the Moon), you must use Science. But that's not enough; you can't do it yourself, you'll have to deal with bureacracy/'the gubbermint'/politics/politicians/... Or, round the other way, what role did politics play in you forming such a desire?

If it helps, think of this as a variation of CP Snow (he of The Two Cultures).

 

[alexandra]

The resources do not exist within the scientific community to "live the lives" of six billion people by making all their choices for them. We're going to have to work on narrowing the scope of this problem statement.

I don't think you mean that the members of the scientific community are to appoint themselves as a representative body in a three way power struggle among public, politicians, and scientists. Further, I don't think you are implying that there are "best choices" that are discernible only to members of the scientific community. Can you work up a restatement?

To narrow the scope: I think perhaps the most important social responsibility of scientists is to ensure that their research findings and its implications (both good and bad) are reported accurately in the media in appropriate (understandable) language. So, for example, instead of toeing the party line (of whichever political party is in power) on environmental issues, or allowing their reports to be edited in ways which minimize the potentially hazardous implications of their research findings (eg. regarding global warming), they could try to ensure that the truth (insofar as it can be ascertained) 'gets out'. Policies that prevent scientists from doing this are, in my opinion, immoral and dangerous - and should therefore be challenged.

Einstein, Oppenheimer, Szilard, Teller --- four different people --- four different sets of opinions (scientific, practical, personal, and political) on nuclear weapons. Hitler and Stalin --- sociopaths, psychopaths, megalomaniacs, or patriots? Definitely threats to the rest of the world. What sort of scientific advice should be given toward dealing with such situations as they presented as far as pursuit of nuclear weapons development? Einstein and Szilard couldn't make up their minds. Oppie went nuts (or nutser), "Oh my god, what have I done." Teller kept his personal opinions out of things, and far as I recall his political opinions as well --- may have been the odd comments about Hitler's and Stalin's personalities and intentions. Pick your expert and play the "what if" history game. Which set of unintended consequences would you prefer to be experiencing today?

You're right, Bystander. Often the complexity of the situation makes it very difficult to decide what the 'best option' is. Life is messy... I guess I don't really have an answer to this one; we can always only judge a situation from the knowledge we have at the time, and this knowledge is usually incomplete. I do think, however, that it is crucial to try to think ahead as well, and to imagine how things could possibly go wrong (what possible unintended consequences there may be) and try to weigh up their severity as opposed to the utility of the proposed 'solution'. One thing I would suggest, however, is that whatever line of work one is in, it is important to be well-informed about the social implications of one's work and to try to minimize possible damage.

... "Vary your word usage to keep the reader interested," got in the road of using "scientocracy" twice in the same sentence, paragraph, or whatever.

That's good, Bystander. That's what I thought you meant when I was developing my response, but after I posted it and reconsidered I wasn't sure... Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Astronuc]

Teller kept his personal opinions out of things, and far as I recall his political opinions as well --- may have been the odd comments about Hitler's and Stalin's personalities and intentions.

Not quite. Teller's personal opinions were at the heart of his drive to develop thermonucler weapons, and get Oppenheimer out of the way.

It's worth reading "Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence and Edward Teller" by
Gregg Herken.

Scientific literature is open. Abstractions, digests, and confabulations of the scientific literature are products of the popular press and media, seldom reflect the content of the original literature, and useless for purposes of informed discussion or decision.

Not all scientific literature is open, but certainly a lot, that published in journals or the press, is. There is a lot of proprietary scientific and technical information that the public never sees. Most of my work falls in the proprietary and confidential realm, and what I do publish is often limited.

The problem in the OP is that the reports from NASA were being controlled or changed at the source in order to change one scientists conclusions regarding the work. It would have been quite different if NASA (on behalf of the Bush administration) had allowed the scientist to publish his own account, then offer a rebuttal or dissenting view.

 

[Andre]

There is a scientific branch that is deeply rooted in society and that's related to the end of things in whatever form. The inherent uncertainty about the future demands certainty from science. This used to be the domain of religion but as those are waning gradually, The Big Answer is now expected from science. We want true predictions. Which Apocalypse will end civilisation? Eugenics? Nuclear Winter, Mutual Assured Destruction, Meteorite collision? Shield Volcano? Something with climate? Can we prevent it?

Now the danger here is entering a positive feedback loop, which can be observed in the daily media. People want to know about disaster, Politics want tranquil taxpayers and orders science to find out about future catastrophes, Science has no hard answers but knows very well to formulate uncertainty -this may.., that may... so that the media -filling in the blancs- are happily announcing approaching apocalypse. So society, scared even more, demands more detail and is willing to pay taxes for that. So politics, all to happy, tasks science to explore the disasters some more, to the elation of the media, seeing the disasters grow, etc, etc.

Science in the society? Okay, but with caution.

 

[Bystander]

To narrow the scope: I think perhaps the most important social responsibility of scientists is to ensure that their research findings and its implications (both good and bad) are reported accurately in the media in appropriate (understandable) language. So, for example, instead of toeing the party line (of whichever political party is in power) on environmental issues, or allowing their reports to be edited in ways which minimize the potentially hazardous implications of their research findings (eg. regarding global warming), they could try to ensure that the truth (insofar as it can be ascertained) 'gets out'. Policies that prevent scientists from doing this are, in my opinion, immoral and dangerous - and should therefore be challenged.

Open literature. Aside from 1st amendment problems, once again, the scientific community does not have the resources to correct every misquote and confabulation generated by "the media." "Social responsibility" is a two-way street: John and Joan Q. have to make an effort, not "toe the party line" of "arrogant ignorance" exemplified in the "Wash. Post - Cohen (the ignoramus)" thread in GD. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111689

(snip)One thing I would suggest, however, is that whatever line of work one is in, it is important to be well-informed about the social implications of one's work and to try to minimize possible damage.
(snip)

There is no room in science for truth, beauty, music of the spheres, social responsibility, "wouldn't it be nice if ..." statements and conditions, or any of the other 50s B-movie philosophy. Science has room only for what is and what ain't. The fusion weapons debate was almost all politics, social responsibility, and personal opinion; the first Soviet test of a fusion weapon took place 9 mos. after the U.S. detonation of "Mike," an undeliverable contraption, and appeared at the time (and may have been) very close to an air deliverable state of development.

Hansen and AGW? The questions are, "Who is, and who is not behaving 'responsibly,' and who is, and who is not doing (and reporting) the science?" Let's see: observation and measurement; reviews of data (particularly that from other sources); hypotheses and tests; conclusions; more observations and measurements; more reviews of data (even more particularly that from other sources): and so it goes. Anything in particular get left out on the AGW discussion? Hint: some omissions of critical steps can be quite conspicuous by their absences in citations, reference lists, bibliographies.

 

[alexandra]

There is no room in science for truth, beauty, music of the spheres, social responsibility, "wouldn't it be nice if ..." statements and conditions, or any of the other 50s B-movie philosophy. Science has room only for what is and what ain't.

Well, ok, that puts it all in a nutshell. Science is science and politics is politics. You know, though, from what I've read of Einstein's thoughts on these issues - well, he seems to contradict everything you say in this statement: to Einstein science was truth and beauty, and it definitely also involved social responsibility. But I guess Einstein was living in a different age - perhaps in the age of "50s B-movie" philosophies. I guess my own beliefs belong to the age of the dinosaurs - quaint old-fashioned beliefs of everyone having a social responsibility to work towards creating a better, more humane future.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Einstein, like every other scientist, was a person. As such he had many views outside of science, but he never mixed up his science with his politics. He had only contempt for shallow thinkers who thought to apply relativity to world affairs.

Nowadays there is a nascent science of politics, branching off of condensed matter physics. But most scientists obey the good rule of not speculating in fields outside their own specialties, and leave it to its experts.

And Marxism is not and never was science. It is philosophy.

 

[Bystander]

Well, ok, that puts it all in a nutshell. Science is science and politics is politics.

I sense disappointment --- please keep in mind that what has been practiced and presented as "science" since WW II ain't science, it is politics

You know, though, from what I've read of Einstein's thoughts on these issues - well, he seems to contradict everything you say in this statement: to Einstein science was truth and beauty,

Not "truth," current best understanding, and not "beauty," just what is --- hagfish and lampreys ain't beautiful by anyone's standards, but they're in this world, they fit their niches, and they work.

and it definitely also involved social responsibility.

"Responsibility," yes. "Social responsibility," no. I'll take the rap for discovering, developing, inventing, whatever I discover, invent, or develop; I will NOT take the rap for what people do with it. I've got my hands full living my life --- making decisions about what six billion other people do with theirs is a little much to ask.

But I guess Einstein was living in a different age - perhaps in the age of "50s B-movie" philosophies.

"There are some things man was not meant to know." That's politics. It's 50s B. It's the union of concerned scientists wearing sack cloth and ashes, crying "mea culpa" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. WW II was an inevitable consequence of WW I, begat by Franco-Prussian and Crimean, begat by Napoleonic Wars, begat by ... People did what had to be done; second guessing themselves after the fact is human nature. Second guessing as a lifestyle --- eh --- bit "over the top."

I guess my own beliefs belong to the age of the dinosaurs - quaint old-fashioned beliefs of everyone having a social responsibility to work towards creating a better, more humane future.

Philosophers and concepts of "social contract" wander all over the map in terms of "responsibilities." What comes first? Self? Family? Group? What's better? Less time working and more time to get into trouble? Or, dawn to dusk, always hungry on the way to an early grave? What's more humane? Pull the plug on Teri (Terri?) Schiavo, or let her parents keep a "potted plant" and their perceptions of their daughter? I don't make those decisions for other people --- making them for myself is enough.

Science used to be about handing tools and information to the public gratis. Today, it's about intellectual property, making a buck, hanging on to funding, dancing jigs for new funding, and lying every day of the week about miracles that are very unlikely to be delivered.

 

[Nereid]

This doesn't seem to have sparked a particularly exciting 'must post to' thread, so I'll try something more specific.

Just to add this (for now): economics is just as much science as biology or physics; perhaps the interplay between Science and Society (with politics as mediator?) might be more clearly discussed there? For example, there's little doubt what sorts of economic policy - implemented correctly of course - lead to 'the greater good' (e.g. subsidies bad, free trade good), but politics so often gets in the way, to the detriment/cost of essentially every human's material well-being.

The ethics/morals/responsibilities/etc (EMR) is a biggie, no doubt about that. What's likely to be quite inflamatory is the application of science to study this (some of the - always tentative - conclusions will likely enrage some folk, remember sociobiology* and E. O. Wilson?). And what's the connection between EMR and politics? Has that even been studied (with the tools and methods of science)?

*and the fuss was about the tentative first few results of some research, with nothing at all about what it implied for social policy or politics!

 

[dsky]

yes I agree, then as an economist , what type policy or economic model (capitalism, communism free economy) will you suggest for the Internationalism as mentioned by Alexandra, then apply it to the hunger in africa, we all know ders drought no food can be produced,
Of course we can not say that Earth cannot produce enough food to sustain life. There is more than enough but where. Any clue ?

 

[alexandra]

I sense disappointment --- please keep in mind that what has been practiced and presented as "science" since WW II ain't science, it is politics

Well, I was disappointed, Bystander. Because if you were going to insist that 'science is science and politics is politics' there would have been nothing to discuss. But if you agree with me that everything nowadays, including science, is politics (which you seem to be saying in your above statement), then there is something to discuss.

"Responsibility," yes. "Social responsibility," no. I'll take the rap for discovering, developing, inventing, whatever I discover, invent, or develop; I will NOT take the rap for what people do with it.

But is it possible, the way society is structured today, to live your life with integrity by adopting such a position? As you said above, "what has been practiced and presented as "science" since WW II ain't science, it is politics". If this is the case, and scientists are aware of this, surely there are moral implications? I'm not targetting science here: I believe this is true for any work one is doing (especially intellectual work). When I teach, for example, I worry a lot about how the knowledge I am helping my students develop will be used in future. I am responsible, at least to some extent, for helping them develop not only 'pure knowledge' but, more importantly, a sense of responsibility in how they use it later. I don't see any way of ignoring this responsibility and still living a life of integrity.

I've got my hands full living my life --- making decisions about what six billion other people do with theirs is a little much to ask.

Good point. I didn't say it was easy:-) I, too, have my work cut out just sorting out my personal problems... but still, there are so many bigger things happening in the world that require attention, energy, and action.

"There are some things man was not meant to know." That's politics. It's 50s B. It's the union of concerned scientists wearing sack cloth and ashes, crying "mea culpa" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki...Second guessing as a lifestyle --- eh --- bit "over the top."

This is not what I propose. Such actions are futile (and self-indulgent and, in my opinion, even pathetic) after the fact. The point is to prevent the occurrence of Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in the first place: that is what I see as 'our' (meaning whoever cares) responsibility.

Philosophers and concepts of "social contract" wander all over the map in terms of "responsibilities." What comes first? Self? Family? Group?

Here's how I see it: it's all interconnected. If the safety of the group (or, going to a larger level, the planet) is threatened, how will one safeguard the family or the self that is a part of that group? It is only by securing the health of the whole that the parts can survive. Just my way of seeing things - maybe (very possibly) you disagree.

Science used to be about handing tools and information to the public gratis. Today, it's about intellectual property, making a buck, hanging on to funding, dancing jigs for new funding, and lying every day of the week about miracles that are very unlikely to be delivered.

Today it is so because human beings allow it to be so. People have the power to change the world they live in - they just have to realize this and exercise that power. Again, this is just my opinion.

 

[dsky]

Nereid youre thread may be slow, but its getting somewhere, so long as there is someone caring enough to help change. let's do it like a steel becoming as it passes through fire. (constructive critism not sarcasm)

 

[Astronuc]

My intent is to kick off some discussion and debate around the role of science in politics, and the extent to which scientists' voices are heard in the setting of (science) policy.

The basic idea is that politics (and policy) mediate between science and society, so the goal of all of us - scientists, non-scientists, members of societies, etc - is to optimise that mediation for effective and efficient realisation of wishes, desires, and hopes (and the alleviation of fears, pains, and suffering).

Digressing to the OP - I don't see politics mediating between science and society, mainly because I see those practicing politics as trying to manipulate society for personal gain, or ego/vanity.

There are several complications to an effective policy on implementing science for the benefit of society:

Society doesn't in general understand science, mainly because the majority of the population is not well-educated! And societies seem to elect politicians with not much more education than the general population - at least that is my first hand experience based on many politicians whom I know. I recall the first president Bush was really astounded by a laser barcode scanner at a supermarket!

Modern industrial societies function on consumption of 'stuff', and we seem to need more energy and resources so we can make more 'stuff'.

In cringe to think we need more electrical generation plants to power X-boxes, video games, . . . . basically more entertainment, ostensibly to forget one's lot in life?

What about political corruption?

How about scientists whose egos propel them to promise more from science and technology than is possible?

What about corporations and their management who want to use science simply as a means to 'make money'?

What about redundant or duplicate research, which is justified by the theory that competition will produce better results, when in actuality that is not necessarily the case?

In the past, colleagues and I have had to prepare 'executive' summaries for corporate managers and government officials - we have had to dumb it down - and it's still that way!