Throughout history, the scientific achievements affiliated with countries are often tied to the government in which they are created in. The democratic principles found in the United States promote scientific progress. However, modern science consists of complex practices and methods, leading to some adversity with democracy. Examples of both scenarios will be highlighted in this blogpost.


The highly selective nature of science in the US has caused many issues that could have been easily prevented. Measures must be taken to avoid the ‘tunnel vision’ that is frequently associated with modern expertise. Close-minded experts have repeatedly ignored potential signs of disaster – events such as 9/11, the housing crisis, and the financial crisis in 2008 are several examples of this apparent complacency. When rules and regulations are enforced to an excess, loopholes are often created to get around these restrictions. As a result, mistakes are inevitable and the potential achievements of scientific research are often left untouched.

Science in democracy in comparison to other alternatives – communism and socialism – is highly effective. When the general public is forced to partake in a cause that all do not necessarily want to partake in, public discourse is a usual outcome. Communist countries in the past, such as Russia, have offered an abundance of resources to specific causes. For example, the nuclear programs during the cold war were highly funded, resulting in a lack of funding for public necessities. The society and culture is converted into an environment where personal interest is disregarded.

A successful hybrid between science and government is crucial for productiveness. Democracy has proven the most effective.