Earlier this week I listened to an interesting segment on NPR that I found relevant to the material we have been studying in this class. It was about the intersection of science and politics and how difficult it is to determine how much authority scientists have in advocating for causes that have vast cultural consequences. There was a central focus on the responsibility that scientists hold in society since we rely heavily on their knowledge and research to make decisions. However, these decisions are made by politicians and policy-makers - which is where the major conflict arises. For some, such as Michael Mann, (a climate scientist interviewed for the podcast), it is immoral for scientists so stay silent when their work reveals a significant threat. He states that "if scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest". For others though, communication of these concerns is the only part that is considered to be a part of the scientists' expertise - not advocacy. When scientists' feel strongly that not enough is being done, or not in the right way, entering the public domain gets them in trouble. In 2011, James Hansen, a world renowned scientists who's research brought human causes of global warming to light in the 1980's was arrested in protest against the Keystone pipeline. I tend to side with the scientists since my interests usually align with theirs', but this is also probably due to the fact that I know more about science than I do about politics.
For anyone who is interested in this article, here is the link :
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/10/16/356543981/when-is-it-ok-for-scientists-to-become-political
No comments:
Post a Comment