Dear Djamel,

Sure that science is the light against the darkness of ignorance. However how could we promote science and scientific thinking into our country's practice rules. Do you think that science is closed to political influencing plans or is it still into its childhood.

Thank you Djamel for your valuable response. However if education (basic and higher) is promoted and encouraged as population encourage deeply the education of their children and many people have high degrees, in that case how scientific people couldn't be respected in their society?

I agree with you that economically scientists are not fashion people as footballers, and do not gain as much money as them. I don't know if a footballer is more useful to the society than a scientist.... Anyway, this is another question from financial sponsorship issue interests.

But if most of people is educated and managerial staffs of enterprises as well as those into universities have high degrees, why scientific thinking is usually missing into decision making plans (the same case into basic municipality and urban administration reality). Is it a political trend ?

Dear Ms Fairouz,

Your question is an interesting multi-dimensional one. It has social, ethical, political and idealistic overtones which can not be answered even in a few pages. Some thoughts, however, I will share.

Science can be free from political overlordship only when science is seen as a knowledge frontier that a country must expand. In 17th Century Japan, the Meiji Emperor ordered that select young men of potential be sent abroad to acquire every scientific knowledge that was then in the possession of the West. From canon making to philosophy, the Empire funded outstanding students to go, acquire expertise and return home to put it to use. As we know, Japan has not been the same ever since.

Scientific frontiers can be expanded when you have good government funding for centers of excellence in universities. How many nations use their universities to create newer systems/studies for improvement? This is one of the drawbacks in developing countries.

Science can be used for improving daily life, assessing environmental impacts, improving agriculture, preserving historical monuments, etc, etc. It can be used to provide quality education to children. This much of wherewithal is there with every country today. Nut they do not do it because of vested political and subversive interest. The blame is not on science. The blame is on us.

When we think that our country comes first, then we use science to grow. When we think that we come first, then we subvert science. Thank you for asking the question.

Have a great day!

Dear Srinivasan,

Thank you for your valuable post. You said "Science can be used for improving daily life, assessing environmental impacts, improving agriculture, preserving historical monuments, etc, etc. It can be used to provide quality education to children.......". So scientific practice and human resources potential should be a focal point into any decision making plan and political strategy, specially into developing countries where needs are huge.

Any normal politician should be attentive to that question unless all his projects plans could fall down. So could any policymaker subvert science by his alone willpower without facing hard critics from his citizenship scientists and international communauty ' as scientists publish into international journals and join international conferences'??? (of course into democratic schemes, under dictators people couldn't criticize)

Hmmm, Ms Fairouz, you are making good points, provoking me to think.

I am fond of history. So, to attempt some answers to your query, I must ask you to step outside Ultrasound and dual wavelets (please do not take offence, since my knowledge of physical sciences is not even good enough to understand the meaning of these words!)

Let us take the scenario of Second World War. German scientists produced rocket technology, mustard gas and superior tanks. Their policy maker (Hitler) encouraged them to produce these so that he could bring death and destruction on the world. An outstanding example of a politician who used 'subverted' science.

Take the other side of the world - America. They took the rocket science, further developed the same and sent man to the moon. By doing so, they paved the way to expand our understanding of how the universe exists and how do we relate to things as Earthlings to the larger system that we are part of. The boundaries of our knowledge grew. (I must stop the example at this only, since any discussion on the military dimension of American space program and the 'Space Race' to weaponize the outer space would again become fertile ground for arguing against space programs).

I am of the view that any progressive nation must provide for and encourage scientific research. While doing so, the policy makers must avoid pushing the scientific community to orient their work towards potentially destructive purposes for their narrow political consideration. They must encourage science for the sake of science and use its products intelligently for community and nation building.

Have a great day!

Dear Srinivasan,

You are right, dictatorial policymaker and their subordinates must be strongly followed by the international communauty. Science must be a source of human progress not for human destruction. I think that we are far from the scheme of ww2 as international communauty has established rules and laws for that issue. Any way any crazy policymaker couldn't subvert science alone if he is not supported by some "scientists far from ethical values " and may be by some foreign international organizations and/or governments. So if some developed nations do not encourage any form of lobbying, squeeze and/or predation on the intellectual and scientific matter of some other nations, may be dictatorial crazy policymakers could vanish.

Dear Ms Fairouz,

I agree with you completely. But what you have stated, if I may say, is Utopian. Nations tend to use their scientific 'prowess' to subvert the sovereignty and integrity of other nations. Politically or ideologically motivated scientists 'sell' their knowledge and expertise for personal fame and wealth. These kind of examples are plenty in our world. Taking names for examples will appear as though we have political interests in our discussion, so we will not take names.

What is important as people of science for us is to strive for a world where scientific pursuits will be made only to expand the horizon of our knowledge. The discoveries made by people of science must then be used by responsible politicians for the larger good of people, not for destruction. Such a commitment and vision from political leadership can only emerge in an idealistic or 'utopian' world. Perhaps we must pray more!!

Have a great day.

Dear Srinivasan,

You say:”Nations tend to use their scientific 'prowess' to subvert the sovereignty and integrity of other nations”.

Of course people who have some expertise tend to export their skills and may be try to dominate a certain part of the market (industrial, scientific, environmental, educative, cultural…etc..), I think that, is part of human nature, people and nations care for to be recognized into their realizations. So what prevent nations and people to pursue an objective purpose (loyal and clear) and be recognized into some achievements?? Only the political line of their Gov.

You say:”Politically or ideologically motivated scientists 'sell' their knowledge and expertise for personal fame and wealth”.

Yes it is true that for celebrity and funds purpose, some people named “scientists” could do business by their expertise (or the expertise of their subordinates) with everybody who offers them the max. out of any ideology or ethics since their ideology is money!! As well as scientists that are not recognized into their employer or country could sell their expertise for a better job, which is natural.

You are right; discoveries made by people of science must be used by responsible politicians for the larger good of people and for science development, not for their self benefit or for destruction ’of science and people of science’.

You say:”Such a commitment and vision from political leadership can only emerge in an idealistic or 'utopian' world”,

I think that when the powership from nation’s governance is responsible, respectful of the citizens and democratic ‘i.e. large public critics and disparate debates are welcomed and encouraged, as well as continuous alternate of politicians and peoples at top desks’, such subvert couldn’t happen.

I think that when nation's leaders think first for their citizens and country not for their selves and egocentrism benefits they couldn't accept any form of corruption, lobbying or any disrespect from any part, as they are attentive to their people and people of science behavior and respectful for their nations' history and endeavor.

So, for that issue ' as political schemes are volatile and unpredictable', how science could be and remain free from any political ideology and ego, and could remain neutral versus any political power ship or misuse.... for worldwide progress??

Have a good day;

First, Dear Ms Fairouz, you must accept a salute from me. Your opinions in para 5 & 6 above deserve one!

Second, you seem to echo what I have vaguely read as "political realism', a concept that was and is being debated after that great political scientist Hans Morgenthau wrote his classical book ' The Scientific Man and Power Politics' (as well as his other books). People in power can not remain committed to high idealism at all times. Sometimes they would slip back to their own vested interest. In other words. power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!!

It is from this perspective that your words "continuous alternate of politicians and people at top desks" takes fantastic meaning. Representative democracy allows people to remove the corrupt and install the correct ones, once in a cycle of four or five or whatever duration the Constitution allows. This way, the politician knows that he has to favour progress and common good than get busy lining his pocket during his tenure. As you will appreciate, for continuously bringing in new and good leadership to power, there has to be minimum two conditions fulfilled:

One, people must be politically aware and motivated. This is where CSOs (Civil Society Organisations) and NGOs have a huge role to play. Currently, I understand that huge initiatives have been taken in Ghana, Burkhina Faso and some other African nations in this direction.

Two, political parties must bring up responsible leaderships. They should have a system by which they groom a certain number of people in their hierarchy who are committed social activists, scholars, technocrats and scientists.

As for your last paragraph, about science remaining apolitical, I would say that including political science (pun intended), science will always remain aloof from politics because true scientists do not need politicians. It is always the other way around. Knowledge is never political. It exists for its own purpose.

One more parting salute to you, Ms Fairouz. have a great day!

Dear Srinivasan,

Thank you, my thoughts are not addressed to someone precisely; and I do not intend to deserve anyone. I know that political governance is based on multiple responsibilities at different hierarchy levels. And I’m conscious that many interests ‘may be geopolitical’ could have also great impacts. Continuous alternate of politicians and people at top desks “of course skilled ones” is obligatory unless any country could becoming a private property of some influencing families and not necessary the skilled ones, the same for political parties. Science products couldn’t be factor for international sponsorship of any policymaker and should be protected from any political leadership strategy. Science could be neutral only when corruption and misuse even political one is denied and scientists recognized through their real works out of any lobbying scheme of political purpose

kind regards.

Agreed, Ma'm. Fully endorse your thoughts!

Dear Fayrouz,

To my mind, and in a general way, very difficult for science (and any human activity) to be free of external influence, because we need money to do science and money is not directly generated by results of science. Money is managed in societies by the ones who produce it, and control in a classical "social system" by politics (in western countries). Politics are supposed to be our representatives (in democratic countries), elected by us. But their final goal is not necessary the common good (most want the power), and they want to have a come back if they invest in research, so leading to control research and researchers. So, now it has been analysed like that, is there a solution for "independence" of research ?

Friendly

Didier

I agree with Srinivasan Rajamanickam. Clear and well said. The answer should consider multidimensional approach because of collateral effects.

Political leadership of a Country should recognise that science and education brings the progress and prosperity.

Your question is very complex in demands, Fairouz. Any attempt towards a balanced answer is not as easy as it appears at first blush.

Science cannot be freed from politics because science itself is a political act! Consider the relationship between knowledge and power. "Knowledge and power go hand in hand," said Francis Bacon, "so that the way to increase in power is to increase in knowledge."

"At its core, science is a reliable method for creating knowledge, and thus power. Because science pushes the boundaries of knowledge, it pushes us to constantly refine our ethics and morality, and that is always political. But beyond that, science constantly disrupts hierarchical power structures and vested interests in a long drive to give knowledge, and thus power, to the individual, and that process is also political."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Shawn lawrence Otto, Scientific American, Nov 24, 2011

@Issam, nice response! I had also a thread concerning politics and its influence on career. I agree with your attitude. Starting from Bacon to nowadays, no one can deny that knowledge is power, the power of a country / society, primarily lie in the knowledge!

Science, intended as the 'society of scientists' or the system of science funding, general strategies , investments, peer-reviewed journals simply CANNOT BE FREE by politics and ideology BECAUSE IT IS MADE (even of) POLITICS AND IDEOLOGY. Single scientists, on the contrary, being human beings and consequently owners of a soul, can ( if they struggle for this goal) be totally free from any kind of mundane conditioning.

It is important to know that science works because is substantially useless, scientists must pursue contemplation and expanding knowledge, practical utility is a corollary not the basic aim.

How Henri Poincarè aptly said:

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it, and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful it would not be worth knowing, and life would not be worth living. I am not speaking, of course, of the beauty which strikes the senses, of the beauty of qualities and appearances. I am far from despising this, but it has nothing to do with science. What I mean is that more intimate beauty which comes from the harmonious order of its parts, and which a pure intelligence can grasp.

Now it is much more easy than years before to follow this goal : thanks to Personal Computers and free data bases on the web we can do ood science at zero cost so keeping ourselves free from politics, economics and similar slaveries....

@Alessandro, I like Your comment, but do not forget that man is a social being and not an isolated of community. Your last sentence , part of, " ...keeping ourselves free from politics, economics and similar slaveries...." ! it is our aspiration, but it is a bit idealistic!

We can succedd to do that for a while, then we fall, then, again we rejoin our freedom and so forth, it happens for practically any human affair...

A country with a strategic agenda for science and technology as related to the economy priorities is a country that leads in self progress and as an agent of change inits surroundings.

A country without any strategic intent may not permit scientists to participate in its governance, this is why many scientists in under developed or early stages countries prefer to stay on the margin otherwise will suffer consequences of corruption and poor judgement.

I am thinking that perhaps it may have something to do with Economic, Cultural, Global convergence type of thing. Where governments use the above excuse to not cooperate with one another. This is just a guess.

Dear Hussin,

I fully endorse your comments. Science and Technology are not merely fields in which academia (researchers) indulge because they have nothing else to do. Their work has direct relations to the life of the society. We have a saying in Tamil language - you may present the finest broad sword to a person. If he chooses to use it for scooping butter, that is what the sword is worth.

Science and Tech are also like that broad sword. If the government and people as a community do not apply them to their life, they remain like the butter-knife. That precisely is where the government policy and industry come in. By providing a conducive policy environment the government can facilitate industry to produce things that are affordable to the people. That way, science and tech would become broad sword again - to be used to battle poverty and to promote better living conditions. Any government (politicians) that uses technology this way would be powerful too, because people would love such government. Sorry, if I sounded a bit idealistic, but that is what I actually feel.

Dear Hussin,

I fully endorse your comments. Science and Technology are not merely fields in which academia (researchers) indulge because they have nothing else to do. Their work has direct relations to the life of the society. We have a saying in Tamil language - you may present the finest broad sword to a person. If he chooses to use it for scooping butter, that is what the sword is worth.

Science and Tech are also like that broad sword. If the government and people as a community do not apply them to their life, they remain like the butter-knife. That precisely is where the government policy and industry come in. By providing a conducive policy environment the government can facilitate industry to produce things that are affordable to the people. That way, science and tech would become broad sword again - to be used to battle poverty and to promote better living conditions. Any government (politicians) that uses technology this way would be powerful too, because people would love such government. Sorry, if I sounded a bit idealistic, but that is what I actually feel.

In India now, they political parties have embarked on utilizing the technologies to reach masses at ease... therefore science practice impacts political power ship... the recent DELHI election make KEJERIVAL use SMS and Twitter to reach the population of DELHI to even get a consensus soughted out whether to take the support of CONGRESS and take the reins of the GOVERNMENT before swearing-in as Chief Minister of DELHI.

Good to know that technology is used for political impact into India , which is a great democracy too. Sure @krishnan that science practice impacts political power ship when used efficiently. However could it impact political power ship similarly in democracy, semi democracy, autocracy or dictatorial scheme?? May be science could be used as a tool for power-ship,so in that case science couldn't escape any corruption form and may be could be used wrongly or with non ethical rules or methods. So the question: "how science could be kept neutral from any political ideology or ego scheme" remains!!!

Still waiting for your valuable comments all of you contributors of this thread

science practice impacts political power ship its impact

- democracy (it will have a great impact and much acceptance)

- semi democracy (it may be played low where there are some cultural and other social issues are concerned; eg., Use of Social network and the control on them in some countries such as China, even in India when political big wigs are commented)

- autocracy (Limited or clandestine use such as the one in Egypt on FB and twitter after the recent problems)

- dictatorial scheme (science can dance only to the tune)

Dear Fairouz,

Your question "how science could be kept neutral from any political ideology or ego scheme" has an answer that hangs between the purpose for which the politician wants to use science and the purpose for which a scientist works on his field. Pavlov's theory of conditioning has the widest application in civil and military training. It is also the most fundamental theory in the "science" of torture!! Pavlov may not have imagined the consequences of his theory in this domain when he actually worked with the dogs in his laboratory.

Scientist like you who have a 'speaking' conscience feel pained when the tools of science are not used exclusively for human emancipation. But politicians and power mongers see it differently. Even though morality may not be the patent call in political power game, we must acknowledge that instances of the use of science for human betterment are more than the instances of misuse of science. Even where science has been used for destruction (the atomic bombing of Japan), the world has woken up to the horrors of this tool of science. Irrespective of their stated/unstated nuclear use policy, no country in the world would like to use an atom bomb now.

Take again dear Pavlov's theory. In the 19th and 20th century, torture was used with impunity to propagate and preserve power. Today, no country or politician would stand for torture for it has become an international criminal offence. This is not to say that torture has disappeared as a practice. But the 'impunity' has definitely disappeared. 'Morality' steps into political domain when politicians as well as people see the 'loose-loose' equation written on the wall.

Scientific knowledge is always neutral. It is the man with access to it who should become moralistic in his thinking. When a politician sees that misuse of science is likely to cost him his chair, he would automatically assume the moralistic crown. Towards this end, it is people like us and around us who must speak, demand, and demonstrate to prevent science from becoming a tool for destruction. It is an utopian wish...but then, unless we want, things will never change.

have a great day!

Thank you @Srinivasan for you thoughts. Indeed "people like us and around us who must speak, demand, and demonstrate to prevent science from misuse".

So, as Humanity has already badly experimented political wrong usage of science with no respect of its protocols, I think that international instances could elaborate rules from any misuse or attempt of misuse of science and its products by politicians, businessmen, and also certain scientists who do not care with morality. At this time "when a politician, businessman, or scientist sees that misuse of science is likely to cost him his chair, he would automatically assume the moralistic crown". May be it is the only pathway to protect scientific knowledge evolution for human benefit, and to protect scientists from predation, abuse, and corruption forms.

Interesting and thought provoking question. I think, Political will is central in the context of this question. We can not underestimate the ability of most of the politicians in understanding the importance of science for prosperity. In my opinion, it is matter of making tangible benefits visible to the politicians. And most important is, setting of right prioritizes.

Thank you dear Asmat for your response, Indeed the importance of science for prosperity is not a discussed question. Politicians are very close to it as it could help them to get further popularity and a best image of skilled or intelligent people. But what is the added value of science for real development in the case of developing countries where science is mostly used as fashion by those politicians

@Fairouz Bettayeb,

Thanks for pointing towards an important aspect i.e. what is the added value of science for real development in the case of developing countries?

The added value of science for real development include but not limited to:

-for evidence based decisions

-to explore a poorly-understood situation or phenomenon

-to predict future needs for efficient planning

-to guide decisions which must be taken

Good points Asmat, however, let us not forget that all politicians have a group of consultants around them, they do know and appreciate the value added of science but being "Politicians" they will use science for political gains and/or swaps of favors versus other important political purposes.