Should the world of science be fully independent of other organizations, autonomous with respect to various pressure groups and lobbies, apolitical and thus fully objective in the conducted research and opinions issued on the conducted research, developed fields of science and interpretation of research results? Should the world of science have traits of transcendentalism, the possibility of a holistic approach to the complex, including international and global problems? The information globalization that is growing thanks to the development of the Internet may facilitate these processes. It is also necessary to develop independent, objective media in which comments to scientific research results published in scientific publications appear.
The development of science has always been determined by the progress of civilization, equipment of the national economy in specific production factors and in productive, intellectual, developmental capacity, etc. Currently, in the technical, biotechnology, IT, medical, etc., the importance of the development of scientific research, results in the form of new patents, innovative technologies and new technical improvements are applied in industry and become key new production factors that increase the country's economic development and raise the standard of civilian life of citizens. There are more and more clusters, within which enterprises cooperate with science centers, with universities and scientific institutes aimed at directing research to create innovative solutions that will quickly find practical applications in industry. There are more and more examples of cooperation of public institutions, science institutions with commercially operating business entities.
Increasingly, large industrial corporations create their own research laboratories. On the other hand, more and more institutes of science assume technological startups based on innovative technological, product, service or other solutions. Universities cooperating with universities help in designing and improving modern curricula at the university, so that students are prepared to the best possible way to the labor market. It happens that companies for specific faculties of technical universities commission the development of specific technologies, innovations, patents, etc., that is, those necessary knowledge-based types of production factors that they need in their business. However, this type of approach mainly concerns or strictly strictly technical fields of study. in artistic studies and some humanities, this approach could fail partially or completely, because it could limit innovation and creativity in shaping the assumptions, concepts and conduct of scientific research.
However, at the universities of mainly humanistic, artistic, etc., the key issue is the independence of creating scientific concepts, independence in the development of research, the formulating theories, their verification, formulas of research and the publication of their results, description and interpretation of the results of scientific research. Therefore, a significant part of learning should be completely independent of business, politics, and various pressure groups lobbying for certain corporations, some of which are internationally active corporations. Information globalization is conducive to media objectivization and pluralisation in many countries. As a result, the description of the results of scientific research can be disseminated and publicized quickly. These processes may contribute to the increase of the objectivity and independence of the world of science.
Should international research teams be created that are abstract, independent of political influences, independent of subjective political views and others? Can an international scientific team of scientists representing different cultures, different subjective views and views on various problems be an effective team capable of conducting interesting scientific research? Can an international scientific team of scientists representing different cultures develop fully objective research projects? In my opinion, yes, it is possible and should create international research teams composed of scientists representing different cultures, different perspectives on various problems, proposing different solutions and research concepts, because in this way the most effective research projects can be created. In this way, the most effective research projects addressing globally significant civilization problems may arise. It is important that they are international research teams, for which the prime issue is tolerance for other cultures, other value systems, the ability to negotiate and develop common solutions for which the objectivity of scientific research, description of the results of scientific research and interpretation of these results is a privy issue.
Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?
In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:
Should the world of science be fully independent of other organizations, autonomous with respect to various pressure groups and lobbies, apolitical and thus fully objective in the conducted research and opinions issued on the conducted research, developed fields of science and interpretation of research results?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
Given that science was be written about to sustain itself within society, it must face society head on.
Yes, the world of science specially the area of research in the universities should be apolitical because it leads to violence or destructive works by political influences.
Given that science was be written about to sustain itself within society, it must face society head on.
The relatively high level of the autonomy of modern law is one of the most significant factors that define the limits of politics and thus contributes to the constructive development of different societies.
There were many examples in the history when ''absolutely interdependent'' science wasn't so good for the mankind. Science research, its' methods etc. depends on scientists and not only on their scientific knowledge - but also on their ethics. That's why, the whole society needs to know what we are doing, why etc. ''Closed'' scientific laboratories could be dangerous sometimes.
Should the world of science be fully independent, autonomous, apolitical and therefore fully objective? How? Independency, autonomy etc. have a price, both literally and metaphorically. Who will pay or is willing to pay for it? I am skeptical.
Partially it is correct but actually nothing is fully ideal in this world . Autonomy ,
Instrumentation , Independence all are growing but narrowness , political ,and
antagonism is a natural drag ie also running besides .
Is it possible for the world of science to be fully independent, autonomous, apolitical and therefore fully objective?
The subject reminds a bit a quotaion from general Franco, who, asked by a man having a position at administration about a certain issue, replied: 'Do the same as I do, that never get involved in politics'.
When Juan Carlos (false Bourbon) asked: 'How do you govern, my general?, response was: 'Why do you want knowing the way I govern, if you won't be in the situation of governing as I do?'
The question by Dariusz implies that politics, a fishy business, is not objective; as description of reality, it may be right, but as a program, no one pretending doing fair politics will accept.
Salut +
Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG
In the light of the above, we are in principle in agreement that the world of science should be apolitical and not fully dependent, especially in universities. However, this is not always possible, especially in research institutes carrying out commissioned research work by companies and government institutions.
Best wishes
Ideally, yes. But we live in a world where money is needed (funding is needed), we need public and social support for research projects. Therefore, the world of science unfortunately cannot be completely independent and therefore completely objective.
I agree with the responses in that crucial topic.
We should not neglect though that science is a social construction as well. It is 'made' by humans. Humans are affected by political and cultural ideas. Therefore science is.
Perhaps it is important to be open minded and always focused on justification of findings.
This applies to all fields of study, I think.
Yes, I also believe that scientific research should be carried out in conditions of full independence from various pressure groups and the influence of dominant entities and institutions operating commercially. However, there are many instances of situations suggesting that this is not always real, especially in the situation of a large diversification of the capital structure and the importance of specific entities, companies, and pressure groups operating under commercial conditions.
The history of science documents that greatest progress was always done by independent scientists and institutions. When science gets captured by a political ideology, the learning impetus is blocked. One recent historical example is the neglect of genetics in Soviet science; it must also be understood that science cannot be conducted by majority voting, i.e. science is 'not democratic' by its origin and nature of methodical inquiry. It is much more a 'minority activity' and should be respected as such, even by the 'ruling power machinery'. In the end, even the opponents of new methodical insights and practices did finally profit from independent science and scientists.
I endorse that the world of science be independent, autonomous, and apolitical to ensure better progress of science and research. This is an ideal scenario but realities are otherwise.
Understand that the key to a radical change in the development of science, technology and innovation depends on the capacity for research in multidisciplinary groups. It is inconceivable that on the eve of 2020, there are still restrictions for a physical job together with a materials engineer, an economist and an industrial designer. The key is there and some companies discovered it some time ago and achieved success in the development of their projects.
Ideally the world of science be independent, autonomous, and apolitical.
Agree, the world of science should be independent, autonomous, apolitical but some cases may be found to be different. Sometime based on the needs of the particular country research goes in a particular direction and progress found in particular field and other fields are neglected.
The scientific thought (even if it is a fact) that can be understood by a politician or journalist can never be independent.
Agree with Dr Sharma, ideally it should be but in reality it is otherwise.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education