by What kinds of science and technology were potentially downplayed during the WAR due to funding mechanism that favors projects with clearer utility potentials?
Science and technology have played pivotal parts of the past world wars. Without a doubt, the use of physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, and other fields of science cannot be ignored when applied to engineering technology that can be used to terminate enemies on the other side of the world. Indeed, it seems as though war is almost a ‘perfect’ homogenous mixture written in history textbooks in which the science AND technology were used in concert with political ideologies, instead of their separating their applications from them. In this way, it seems as though science and technology are the same fruit from different trees– with respect to war. Both terms are somewhat interchangeable as long as they referred to their technical impacts on war, such as innovation or paradigms. However, within their fields of study, I believe there were various forms of science that were downplayed with respect to war. I would like to examine this phenomenon using my own personal experiences as well as how I speculate how war downplayed these fields.
In the future, I would like to work in some sort of lab or be doing scientific research– hopefully on marine organisms or insects. There are many biology majors at Colby who are very excited to work in a lab setting and I would say the other half probably wants to work in the medical field–treating patients. Between these two groups, I see a very apparent trend in the ideology of work and science. Researchers, in general, are pursuing research in favor of their own interests and have a genuine passion for the science behind their field. Medical students, in general, have a greater passion for the work they are producing instead of what the science behind their field. This makes sense in a society where doctors are the at the higher quartile of desirable jobs, in terms of measurable income and real-world application. Without a doubt, the DIRECT impact a surgeon is having on a patient’s health is far easier to appreciate than the genomic research Professor Angelini is doing on his soapberry bugs, although the indirect impact is a much more interesting conversation. Even within the field of research however, we see this innate human desire for recognition and direct impact work becoming apparent in lab preference. For example, Professor Rice of the chemistry department has gained a lot of attention from students who want to work in his lab because it pertains to cancer. His lab interviews for selecting students are more rigorous and selective when compared to other Colby Professors. Both research students and pre-med students have told me how the only reason why they want to work in Professor Rice’s lab is because it has to do with cancer. As a researcher myself, I find cancer to be a pretty broad and often over saturated area of research. However, I acknowledge how the students interested in research would like to work in his lab because it is prestigious and seems like it heavily applies to direct real world applications. Using this length personal example of the humanistic quality of instant recognition, the way other sciences were ignored during war can be applied using the same method.
There were many fields of sciences that were probably ignored during the war. Even within biological and physics research, >95% was probably not relevant to the government. However, I think the most downplayed research during wartime was probably related to research that would instigate an opposition to war– examples of such are psychology (effects of war on human neurological health), environmental studies(how war and technological progress destroys ecosystems), or social sciences (what lasting effects war could have on societies views on technology or other cultures). These examples come into play when relating it back to how people happen to favor the direct results in contrast to long term goals. For example, Professor McClenahan has a widely acclaimed research paper regarding shifting baselines, which investigates how current fishery populations are not ecologically stable as using data from the past perpetuates an inaccurate investigation of past fishery populations which lead to an exponential inaccuracy of the next quantity of a subsequent reading. It’s a very interesting paper but I want to think about this type of research in regard to wartime. Ecologists, marine biologists, and psychologists would probably favor investigating the detrimental effects of war in their respective fields, just as I described above. By nature, scientists gravitate towards the most relevant and impactful (on a public level) research and in efforts to mitigate this research, I think that the government and other powerful entities probably tried their best to defund and prevent this type of outreach. Although this is just mere speculation, I think it’s worth noting as we often do not acknowledge the potential science that was LOST during these very polar times in human history. Indeed, we may have seen a greater impact on environment had that type of research been emphasized during the war time.