Science

I'm engaged in a debate with a scientist over science and politics (I'm the political scientist). I'd like to know if the 'conduct' or 'process' of science is inherently 'political' or is it 'value-free'? Is science as a 'body of knowledge' political?

Comments

It is certainly possible to show, empirically, that the naturalsciences are very often influenced by political forces, broadlyspeaking. For example, the practices of scientists of all disciplinesare demonstrably affected by: decisions about research funding andcriteria; how research problems are prioritized, ordered, evaluated,posed; how results are interpreted, published, ignored or celebrated;historically variable standardization of procedures forexperimentation, the selection and treatment of subjects, dataanalysis, recording or reporting; indeed, what even counts as'scientific'. But moving from this 'very often influenced' to'inherently political' is not easy. The question is no easier toanswer in the second form of it that you pose, concerning the 'bodyof knowledge'. On the one hand knowledge appears impersonal andisolated from its conditions of production or use in the way thatscientific 'conduct' or 'process' is not. On the other, it might seemhopelessly abstract to claim for a body of knowledge a statusindependent from the manner in which it is transmitted, used,interpreted and so forth. One of the issues here is how broadly onehas to define 'politics'. At stake are not just the decisions,organization or practices of national or local governments, butprofessional organizations, teams of co-workers, Universities anddepartments, social and economic movements, whether real or imagined,the media in all its forms, and so forth. If we go so far as todefine politics as vaguely as 'interpersonal normative constraints onpersonal thought and action', for example, then even could your claimbe proved, would it be saying much?

What might be involved in attempting to demonstrate the'inherently political' nature of the sciences? One approach would beto trace historically the advent of the idea of science itself and ofthose goals and procedures deemed 'scientific'. If this idea couldnot be isolated from the concurrent political forces at work, thenthat might be deemed to show that the concept 'science' has nomeaning when abstracted from politics. This is something like MichelFoucault's aim in, for example, The Order of Things, althoughto be sure he is concerned more with the human sciences than thenatural.

It is certainly possible to show, empirically, that the natural sciences are very often influenced by political forces, broadly speaking. For example, the practices of scientists of all disciplines are demonstrably affected by: decisions about research funding and criteria; how research problems are prioritized, ordered, evaluated, posed; how results are interpreted, published, ignored or celebrated; historically variable standardization of procedures for experimentation, the selection and treatment of subjects, data analysis, recording or reporting; indeed, what even counts as 'scientific'. But moving from this 'very often influenced' to 'inherently political' is not easy. The question is no easier to answer in the second form of it that you pose, concerning the 'body of knowledge'. On the one hand knowledge appears impersonal and isolated from its conditions of production or use in the way that scientific 'conduct' or 'process' is not. On the other, it might seem hopelessly abstract to claim for a body of knowledge a status independent from the manner in which it is transmitted, used, interpreted and so forth. One of the issues here is how broadly one has to define 'politics'. At stake are not just the decisions, organization or practices of national or local governments, but professional organizations, teams of co-workers, Universities and departments, social and economic movements, whether real or imagined, the media in all its forms, and so forth. If we go so far as to define politics as vaguely as 'interpersonal normative constraints on personal thought and action', for example, then even could your claim be proved, would it be saying much?

What might be involved in attempting to demonstrate the 'inherently political' nature of the sciences? One approach would be to trace historically the advent of the idea of science itself and of those goals and procedures deemed 'scientific'. If this idea could not be isolated from the concurrent political forces at work, then that might be deemed to show that the concept 'science' has no meaning when abstracted from politics. This is something like Michel Foucault's aim in, for example, The Order of Things, although to be sure he is concerned more with the human sciences than the natural.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Science