Can science be politicized, and is that good or bad?

To make the question meaningful, some distinctions are useful.

In this case, is “science”

1. the methodology of science

   (I won’t call it the ‘scientific method’ because a lot of research, while certainly frameable in ways that make it fit neatly into the cookbook steps of the canonical scientific method, doesn’t actually play out that way in real time)

2. the people who do science
3. the body of knowledge created by 2. doing using 1.

One at time then…

I’m going to argue for now that the methodology of science is apolitical. As far as I can tell, it really has been constructed and refined with the sole goal of divining objective truth. That may well have political implications, but it isn’t in itself political. So to answer the two questions – is the scientific methodology politicized: no. Is that good or bad: not applicable, since it isn’t.

The people who do science definitley can be and are politicized. To a greater or lesser degree, conciously or unconciously, willingly or unwillingly, scientists are as political as the next person. They have to varying degrees political leanings, memberships, theories and aspirations. Is that good or bad? Good, I think. Everyone should be politically mindful. Society affects us and we affect society and it’s counterproductive to ignore that by almost any measure.

Is the body of knowledge we sometimes call science politicized? This is where the contentiousness lies. I think another distinction is needed.

Are we talking about

• the questions that are asked

  or

• how the questions are answered

Alternatively, you could say, are we talking about about when the scientific method gets applied, or how?

Which questions get asked scientifically is certainly a politicized event. Do we ask, to use a crude example, what the fastest way to refine oil is or what effect car exhaust has on vegetation? So, is it good or bad that this is a politicized thing? It’s inescapable, wether we choose to ignore it or not. I’m not sure that I can figure out a clear criteria on which to judge it as good or bad. It’s bad to pretend it isn’t. I think that individual scientists often have little or no concious or even unconcious political intent when they choose their research topics, but either way the implications can be importantly political.

The how half of this what/how division is where there is more clarity. If science is politicized in a such a way that data collection or analysis or any other step of the process is corrupted or slanted by concious or unconcious political agendas then that is bad bad bad. Once you’ve picked your question, the politics should end. Once you’ve reported your answer, the politics may well start up again. In between, dedication to finding an objective answer to your question should reign above all other considerations. That is where objectivity should exist, and that’s why I think objectivity can exist in science – it has a particular place in the process independant of the very real political or social context it may exist in.

The question of just what exactly science is or isn’t is a philisophically charged and ambigous one, despite my effort to dice it up so neatly above. In the end, what is or isn’t science may be determined simply on the grounds of relatively intangible measures of integrity and honesty. If a course of investigation in honestly dedicated to ferreting out objective truth, and is carried out with honesty, then that may well be science, regardless of it’s specific form. If it has any other goals diluting it, or if it isn’t carried out with considerable integrity, then it isn’t science. Again, regardless of it’s form.* So, if an investigation is claiming the mantle of science but is politicized in a way that disrupts that obsession with objective truth, then that is a form of dishonesty. Bad. Wrong.

Politics and science aren’t seperate, and they aren’t seperable. I think we should be aware of that. But that inseperability isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If we are aware of the larger world – the political world or whatever term you want to use for it – when we undertake science then science is improved. What’s important is that we partition the influence of politics on science with mindfullness and care.

*I first had that blinding flash of inspiration whilst trying to write a philosophy of science take-home exam essay very early in the morning it was due. Turns out that others have beaten me to this philosophical punch. They probably landed it a lot better too, I can’t remember much about that essay. This guy, James R. Wilson from North Carolina State, probably does an excellent job for instance, and soon I will read his no doubt very good keynote address:

Conduct, misconduct, and cargo cult science.