Relationship Between Science and Politics

SCIENTIST FOR FUTURE. Global climate change strike - No Planet B - Global Climate Strike 09-20-2019 Credit: Markus Spiske

A Personal Policy Response Regarding The Interactions Between the Scientific and Political Realms

Throughout history, the interplay between science and politics has been profound and transformative. Scientists and experts have actively influenced policymaking by offering evidence-based insights, shaping significant decisions that underpin out present-day society. Government funding has been instrumental in advancing scientific knowledge and technology, driving crucial discoveries that cater to societal needs. However, ethical considerations remain pivotal in navigating scientific challenges. Moreover, science has served as a bridge for international cooperation, fostering diplomacy among nations. As a result, scientific literacy and public engagement have become essential for informed decision-making in a complex world. This dynamic relationship between science and politics hinges on collaborative efforts and open dialogue to address the intricate issues confronting humanity.

Science and politics are intertwined with varying degrees of complexity, as revealed in the initial readings. The relationship between the two can be contentious, especially when conflicting views emerge due to political or scientific beliefs. Wolters’ & Steel’s (2018) article highlights how differing opinions on the acceptance of science-based information in politics can depend on one’s political party affiliation. This can lead to resistance and limited support for certain scientific findings that challenge prevailing political ideologies or religious beliefs. Consequently, policymaking and scientific progress may be impeded when polarized opinions prevail (Wolters & Steel, 2018; Steel, 2015).

Conflicts between science and politics often lead to selective bias, where opposing parties seek to dismiss or remove concepts or policies that challenge their beliefs. In recent years, extreme polarities in ideas related to science and its implementation through policy have emerged between political parties such as Democrats and Republicans. These polarities can result in delayed law implementation and increased risks to human health and welfare. Confirmation bias plays a significant role in decision-making, as people tend to favor information that supports their arguments while disregarding contrary evidence. Galef (2016) highlighted how emotional and environmental factors influence an individual’s beliefs, leading to confirmation bias. This bias has exacerbated the polarization of political parties, as certain politicians only seek or accept information that aligns with their personal beliefs, regardless of the majority’s stance. This behavior devalues collective opinions and disregards broader perspectives.

Despite the widespread public support for science-backed progress and societal improvement, it is important to empower the people rather then rely solely on individual politicians who may selectively favor against scientific advancements based on personal beliefs or gains. There is a concerning trend where government support and funding are disproportionately allocated to the military, often overshadowing other critical areas of research. Morgenthau (1964) discusses how the United States government prioritizes military-based advancements over other sectors of science and technology. Consequently, funding for universities and non-governmental research organizations become extremely limited and restricted to a select few. The previous administration notably reduced budgets for various research groups and welfare-related agencies (Science Magazine, 2017). Such cuts have had a tangible impact on important areas of research and hindered progress in tackling crucial societal challenges (Science Magazine, 2017). 

The next following questions discuss various concepts and points addressed throughout some of the readings above, with additional material to help support my opinion regarding each topic. Being a conservation biology student with interest in policy regarding environmental science, natural resources, and climate change, I will include my thoughts and conclusions to each question that I believe would benefit society and promote scientific advancements even if these are considered heavily polarized topics. I will also address how biases influence decision-making and why there is a trend for opposing views that may challenge the way individuals perceive scientific knowledge or evidence. Lastly, I will discuss how the military’s influence on science and technology has led to modern-day advancements within the United States and whether this may lead to further conflict in the future or not. 

Depending on one’s beliefs or opinions regarding the influence of science on policy-making can vary. Typically within the scientific community, it is often encouraged to have science-based information or facts be implemented into policies to better society. However, one’s political stance may contribute to their support on what degree of specificity should be allowed within policymaking. Wolters & Steel (2018) explain that there are variations within the general public about how much influential power scientists should have on laws and regulations, with particular survey-based questions such as whether or not scientists should make an impact on policies. In a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2016, it was found that a person’s level of scientific knowledge or understanding leads to their decisions on how openly we should embrace scientific evidence (Funk, 2020). It was shown in this survey that those who categorized themselves within the Democratic political party tended to be more in favor of science-based policies and expected outcomes if not addressed immediately (Funk, 2020). This is important to note when considering how scientists should or should not influence policy since most people support scientific advancements or science-based knowledge that benefits society rather than individual gain. 

Conflicts can quickly arise between political affiliations and science, with religion being the most common influence or example. The majority of scientists are considered atheists, whereas the general public tends to be classified as religious individuals (Steel, 2016). Most science-based facts or fundamental knowledge contradict religious teachings, specifically Christianity, which is considered the most popular spiritual practice in the United States. Such scientific evidence challenges what religious groups believe and can result in those with political power and are affiliated with religious groups like Christianity opposing policies that do not support their values or beliefs. Even if the mass majority of U.S. citizens are in favor of funding bills that back the science. The best way for people to see an increased change in what is being opposed or supported within their legislation is to keep and vote for individuals that are willing to promote scientific evidence into policy. Not only this but also that although there is the ability to practice religion freely, it should not be utilized or influenced by political parties or policies. Lack of communication from either side or a willingness to understand what opposing beliefs favor is also of great importance if we are to see valuable and influential change within our government. The Church and government need to stay separate. If we continue to allow religious beliefs to influence or dictate all individuals’ rights, this may lead to extreme instability and increase conflict between political parties and societal groups. As Funk (2020) explained through the Pew Research survey, democrats are more open to accepting science-based policy than republicans are, which may mean a significant distrust in scientific evidence since it challenges or contradicts religious texts. This, but religious beliefs are often challenged by natural or biological fact, which results from empirical evidence and testable experiments that lead to conclusive facts (The Intersection of Science and Religion, n.d.). Common conflicts between science and religion are evolution, climate change, etc. Communication between religious and non-religious individuals should allow for collective understanding and potential agreement to some degree rather than separate political parties and disregard either party’s stance on specific policy topics.

Even though there is collective support for science being incorporated within policy-making, many people, especially within the political realm, oppose science-backed evidence since it does not support their prerogatives or financial gain. Unfortunately, science is often cherry-picked by those who only intend to utilize such evidence to back their benefits, even if it may impact millions. The role politicians should play within designing and interpreting the intention behind the science to develop a legislative document that benefits society. There needs to be more diversity in terms of who is in power politically. Various individuals represent marginalized groups, which would slightly lead to more open acceptance for science implementation in the policy. The majority of the US government is led by white, middle-aged men, which does not offer equal representation and understanding of specific groups’ various impacts. Not only this, but it leads to an unhealthy power dynamic. Especially in climate change and environmental injustice, marginalized groups and lower-income communities are impacted the most yet do not have individuals within our government to responsibly and adequately represent them.

I believe that we as a society should be more open to embracing what scientists have to offer, especially, regarding environmental policy. Conservative representatives tend to negate any information that supports evidence of climate change or that certain anthropogenic activities are speeding up the effects of climate change. Scientists should be heavily included in topics such as these to ensure that valid experts are incorporating actual evidence and explaining the detrimental and permanent effects that may occur if better environmental policies or climate change-related laws are not established. There needs to be an equal balance between scientists and politicians to find a middle-ground that both parties and representatives can agree upon. Scientists should not necessarily be expected to understand or be good at developing policy but rather explain how vital science-based information is regarding specific policies. As well as policymakers not being considered experts in environmental science or presenting scientific facts and evidence. Policymakers should solely focus on interpreting what evidence is provided from the majority or collective consensus rather than what they believe to be true. In peer-reviewed literature within science, multiple experts within the field edit and comment on proposed articles and whether or not these support the objective truth or evidence that has already been confirmed and concluded to be valid. The same should go for the way policy is being proposed and established, but in a more fine-tuned method than it currently is with our current policy-making practices, which typically leads to dead-ends or bills that are not being collectively agreed upon being dropped or tabled. There needs to be a recycling of policies not agreed upon to find that well-balanced middle-ground to better society. I also believe that with regards to scientists, there needs to be more representation of individuals as experts in environmental science since there is a common trend for white, middle-aged men to represent the general collective of environmental scientists. Policymakers should also come from various backgrounds, other than law, politics, and business as well. The more diverse opinions, the better off policy-making will be. There also needs to be a willingness from both parties to cooperatively listen and understand what either group is saying or explaining in order for there to be a more well-rounded acceptance of both group’s needs or expectations. 

It is difficult even within the realm of science to be entirely unbiased since most scientists aim for observations or questions that lead them to concepts or conclusions that better understand various topics. Of course, some experiments within science can be extremely close to being classified as unbiased work. Potochnik (2020) explains that although there are biases, scientist’s opinions and societal values shape and influence what specific research questions and observations are being selected, but it is primarily influenced by social values and beliefs. Ideological awareness is vital for our collective understanding of science, and failure to acknowledge this leads to issues within political roles since it can lead to incorrect or non-beneficial concepts being supported or funded by the government more so than those that would benefit society as a whole (Potochnik, 2020). If there is a growing awareness in both political and science roles, we would see less instability on decision making and controversy regarding certain topics, especially within the realm of science (Potochnik, 2020). 

Science has become a very politicized topic that tends to lean more towards liberal ideology which leads to more conservative parties deeming it to be untrustworthy (Reinero, 2020). When research is applying for federal funding, the government seems to be more selective towards certain subjects or research compared to others. With the previous administration, climate change and other environmental science-based topics or research were funded whatsoever. Within the last administration, the majority of funding went directly into the military’s spending budget, primarily emphasizing growth for the U.S. Space Force (Chemnick, 2020). Morthenthau (1964) explains that the U.S. government post-World War II increased technological advancements with some slight enhancement of science-based research and studies. Government-funded research in science does provide valuable information, but because of the contradicting opinions by policymakers as well as the lack of proper funding for research that should be prioritized more, such as climate change and environmental protection, means that there is still bias with what is or is not approved by those in roles of high power and leverage. Federal funding, particularly within the Trump administration the National Institute for Health (NIH) saw a sharp drop in funds by approximately 22%, alongside a major drop in science research funding, until it was finally acknowledged that there are some aspects within science that promote financial gain (Science Magazine 2017). If the research leads to more investments or increase in finances it is more likely to be supported by those in politics who prioritize wealth and power over general public welfare. 

The majority of funding from the government is spent on defense and the military, with a larger portion of said funding leading to the creation of items that are considered to be modern day utilities or convenience items like GPS, digital cameras, computers, etc. (Willings, 2018). Technology and innovation are essential if a country is to shift their position or power compared to other countries. The United States and the Department of Defense prefers to disperse funds to research in fields that are beneficial assets to military advancements (Wim, n.d.).  This is primarily to increase long term success and overall stability as a country in power internationally-speaking. 

War has always been a constant event within humanity, but with the increase in technology it makes it more complex but with less human life being lossed (McMurdo & Hocking, 2018). The current U.S. military is largely reduced compared to the size during the Cold War, but the military is prioritized more in our current setting than previously (McMurdo & Hocking, 2018). Policymakers currently prefer to utilize the military as the first line of defense or diplomacy rather than it being the last option available (McMurdo & Hocking, 2018). This of course leads to a higher dependency and therefore a much higher budget than any other areas. Of course, extreme tactics and inventions such as the atomic bomb proves that the United States prioritizes funding military-based research even if it fits within the realm of science as well (Eisenhower, 1946). 

These factors lead to the U.S. being considered a dominant political and power figure internationally, because of the utilization and advancements of the military being the first line of defense. Especially after the effects of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this led to the U.S. becoming a country to be even more feared than previously before. Technological advancements that are developed by the military have led to enhanced modern day life for civilians, since most complex inventions that were first utilized solely for the military are now classified as common commodities for the general public to use. This of course explains why the U.S. is constantly included within the international political realm, since they have led the way for the majority of technological innovation and research. 

References

Chemnick, J. (2020, February 11). Climate change once again left out of trump's federal budget. Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-once-again-left-out-of-trumps-federal-budget/

Eisenhower. (1946) Scientific and Technological Resources as Military Assets. Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company: 231-234. Retrieved from https://oregonstate.instructure.com/courses/1710917/files/73239281/download?wrap=1

Funk, C. (2020, August 28). How much does science knowledge influence views on climate, energy? Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/22/how-much-does-science-knowledge-influence-peoples-views-on-climate-change-and-energy-issues/

Galef, Julia. (2016) Why you think you’re right -- even if you’re wrong. TED. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4RLfVxTGH4.

McMurdo, T., & Hocking, C. (2018, June 22). Technological prowess, lethality, and The CIVIL-MILITARY DIVIDE. Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/technological-prowess-lethality-and-the-civil-military-divide/

Morgenthau, H. J. (1964, December). Modern Science and Political Power. Columbia Law Review,64(8), 1386-1409.

Potochnik, A. (2020, August 09). Awareness of our biases is essential to good science. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/awareness-of-our-biases-is-essential-to-good-science/

Reinero, D. (2020, November 01). Researchers' politics don't undermine their scientific results. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-politics-dont-undermine-their-scientific-results/

Science News Staff May. 23, 2., Sofia Moutinho Apr. 7, 2., Sofia Moutinho Mar. 31, 2., Sofia Moutinho Mar. 26, 2., Adrian Cho Mar. 24, 2., & Sofia Moutinho Mar. 23, 2. (2017, July 26). What's in trump's 2018 budget request for science? Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/what-s-trump-s-2018-budget-request-science

Steel, B.S. (2015) Science and Politics: Science and Politics: An A-to-Z Guide to Issues and Controversies. Los Angeles: Sage. retrieved from https://oregonstate.instructure.com/courses/1710917/files/71834667/download?wrap=1 

The Intersection of Science and Religion. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

Wim, S. A. (n.d.). Science, technology, and the military: Relations in transition. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 598-626. doi:10.4135/9781412990127.n26