Without giving a country as a concrete example, various research arguments are being transformed into a "threat" to the security or stability of that country. Researchers and professors who work on issues such as religion or politics can become enemies of the state?
Does research without the freedom to express what one believes, researches and discovers make sense?
Pablo Baisotti
You should organize your research in this case across the network and connect with interested people within these countries
The search path is secure
Greetings my friend
Исследования слишком острых проблем в стране, где ограничена свобода творчества, может осуществляться только при условии, что работа будет посвящена общефилософским вопросам и не затрагивает политическую с социальную действительность. В противном случае ученый будет вынужден эмигрировать.
I would add, is there anyone from North Korea who studies and researches politics and religion?
this would mean that democracy is the best system of government, especially for professing all kinds of freedoms?
I think so
Where it is forbidden to act independently, so that the results are visible to others and it is clear that they do not coincide with the official opinion, thinking plays a special role - and art. Because art is able to symbolically represent the longings and needs of people in such a concentrated way that everyone understands this statement. Art has always been in opposition to the established society and dictatorships, and artists must be particularly careful in such cases, if they want to protect their own life.
I'd like to say so many things. I live in a kind of "Oceania" where the presence of the Big Brother is a constant. For Orwell Big Brother appears constantly through the telepanels in the strong propaganda of the single party (now on social networks of all kinds).
Likewise, like the novel, its existence is enigmatic, because it never appears in person nor does it say its real name, being simply an invention of the Party to be used as a propaganda weapon and instill confidence in the population as well as fear and respect (so many coincidences with today??).
It depends on the type of research, in social sciences where questionnaires are usually employ, there could be difficulty for researchers.
There will be so many hurdles while starting research, continuing or submitting the final report. Several things come in between and one has to go forward. Being in a country, I believe that one is adjusted to the environmental conditions and what to do and what not to do be known. As all of us live in society, if freedom of expression is reduced, one can select another topic. I think there is no other way except this.
In this case we need to compromise and reach a point where we can express our thoughts without breaking the law!
If common sense is used to answer the question, there are two possible answers: Under the conditions of possible imprisonment, research is severely restricted. Whether it makes sense to do research under these conditions - what would be the realistic alternative for researchers should be said by the question poser - depends on the individual conditions. This can hardly be answered in general terms. The same applies to the question of whether there are certain forms of passive or active resistance.
Researcher is human being reside in social, religious and political systems and enjoy equal freedoms at par.
Academic title segregate with respect to academic performance therefore penetration in integrity of other systems restricted by law or interference in 'Privacy' with respect to subjectivity may be avoided for betterment in academic values
I firmly believe that "history" will not be repetitive here. Unlike Alfred Wegener (Continental Drift),Ignaz Semmelweis (Hand washing saves lives),Aristarchus (Heliocentric Solar System),Gregor Mendel (Genetic inheritance),Nicholas Copernicus
(Heliocentric Solar System),Johannes Kepler (Heliocentric Solar System – Elliptical Orbits),Amedeo Avogadro
(Avogadro’s Law).........the seven scientists whose ideas became widely accepted only after they were dead, due to many reasons (not exactly the lack of freedom of expressions)........the historical recurrence will not be true in this modern scientific socio-political world. "Truth", the only ultimate outcome of any research will always be and remain the obvious winner disproving all odds irrespective of space and time.
When the researcher lacks freedom of expression, he either stops his working or he subjects to the circumstances and thus loses honesty in his work.
of course the research is heavily influenced in such case. however, a researcher should try to amass reality based facts as possible.
It would be a take a stroll ( jogging) in a mine-field. That would be difficult and you would be improsonment ( there are -thanks God- few countries like that in the world, e.g. North Korea) i think, majority of countries can accommodate freedom of expression unless inciting terorism.
تقديم الباحث لفكرته العلمية التي ترسم خطوة مهمة في طريق المعرفة التي تفيد تقدم المجتمع وتطوره
Just I uploaded a paper successful in my RG-area, in spite of controling powers
Why not give a specific example? It exists - this is a former Soviet science. Despite the fact that it provided many opportunities to study the influence of the state and its falsely understood interests, this example has little effect on modernity (although, in my opinion, such a study would be very productive). It is believed that the leadership of the former USSR strongly influenced the so-called "humanitarian" research, leaving aside the "exact" sciences, which developed on the basis of the utilitarian needs of society. In fact, not quite so, there are many examples of attempts to interfere in the development of the exact sciences.
At the same time, many of the humanitarian scientists have left their mark despite the limitations that existed (for example, MM Bakhtin, I can give much more names). Not to mention biology, such an intervention is also known in physics. But who did it, the state or the party organs? By no means. People were engaged in it. And numerous experts in the "history of the CPSU", "scientific communism", "political economy" did not go work as the janitors after the collapse of the Communist Party. They simply changed the "research direction" (with natural wastage, after all, 30 years have passed). Now they are engaged in sociology, political science, economics, etc. The same methods and with the same efficiency.
In doing research, one should have freedom to write and communicate. If this is not there, research will not move forward. Research also needs support and assistance. If freedom is not there, better to leave that topic and do the other work you are interested, having amicability and feasibility.
Well but I reseach on arguments related to history and religion or political science I can not move to engineering, or something "harmless" for the sensibility of a government that do not tolerate other opinion that his
Pablo Baisotti
You should organize your research in this case across the network and connect with interested people within these countries
The search path is secure
Greetings my friend
Just collabarate with other researchers and seek international protection. Or doing that research issue and publish after leaving the country.
Hello Pablo
How free and independent are you really when you can get in conflict with your source of wealth?
You have taboos and restrictions in every human society and you had it in the past and in most countries, you risk your professionel career when you trigger the "wrong" themes, independently of the content of facts, that you present.
Without giving a country as an exact example:
wouldn't we all agree, that it is a crime to
-steal land from aborigin cultures
-destroy them after
-import slaves from other cultures
-excluding them permanently from usual civil rights
-using weapons of mass destruction
-permanently fake news and media to your own benefit
-keeping a global state of warfare to secure the own exceptionalism and economy
-permanently violate the law of nations
-permanently manipulate the world economy to your own benefit
How big are your chances for a great career in, let's (incidently) say a north american university, if you actively focus too often on the points above?
My opinion is, that your authentic working is easier, when you do not mix your personal financial base with the subjects of your research, but it is nevertheless no free science, because you have other restrictions, deeper and more subtile
There is a censorship inside the sciences too. if you do not follow the actual mainstream, you will be easily discredited.... a similar mechanism.
let's take Stanley Prousiner and the history of discovering the prion theory as an example. He changed his state from a ridiculous lunatic and scarlatan to a scientific genius, after winning the noble price, without having any political pressure....
Hello Frank
I'm not mixing my academic and financial interests.
I believe that all science (except that which may harm the human being), as well as art, cannot be censored, the progress of humanity in many occasions was made against the theories of those moments.
much less in the social sciences, why should I follow the mainstream? if I thought otherwise I couldn't adhere to what most people say.
This is a very interesting and serious discussion. Religious and financial beliefs can impede and influence research, The Bush administration because of its strong religious right limited research using embryos. I do not know where I stand on that, it was just an example. I have had Professors, teachers and peers who left or escaped totalitarian regimes who were definitely influenced and affected by fear of death or injury if they were not agreeable to the regime. That being said Sputnik was a tremendous achievement for the scientists at the time. It is not a question of the scientist's intellect, it is a matter of freedom to safely pursue knowledge and be able to share it for the world's betterment. Or, not. As long as a negative opinion dies not cause harm.
brigid
Practically it is impossible. First, it calls for budget. Under dictatorship it is impossible to carry out original research, the barrier is all the time the regime. when the supreme leader in Iran says the English language is the danger to our country, how come one as a researcher expects to have access to up-to-date referrences. For example in Iran even most teaching sites in English are blocked or at universities up-to-date books are not found many.
For certain, it is impossible to be able to do research in a country where there is no freedom.
A strange and interesting question, restricting freedom of expression is a reality in many countries. This reality kills creativity and innovation and makes it difficult.
- Badges
- Science topic