by In this unit, we discussed two very different matters, science and democracy. We analyzed science and democracy throughout history and worked to find connections and relations between them. Prior to this unit, I never really gave much thought about the relationship between science and democracy and how they closely affect each other. Through discussions and readings, I realized the significance of a democratic nation regarding how that affects the make up and regulations of the science community. There are an abundance of advantages and disadvantages in having a democratized science community. Due to these huge positive and negative differences regarding the existence of democracy and science, the relationship between these two matters proves to be consequential for a nation’s society and government.
Many people make the argument that there is a common understanding that science and democracy are mutually supportive and that a democratic government offers a unique opportunity for the science community. First, democratized science communities allow for transparency of thought, free exchange of ideas, and fair review of ideas or work. The implementation and organization of these values into science contribute to the increase of democratic values in society and government as a whole. The idea of a very level playing field in which scientists are encouraged to use knowledge and evidence based research to contribute to solutions to public issues is rooted in democratic values. This format allows for scientists to have the freedom to explore and experiment on their own projects individually with little to no backlash or regulations. Additionally, science is a key factor in providing the proper means necessary to efficiently run a democratic nation. According to the Journal of Philosphy, “The voting machine, the radio, statistical techniques, educational theory, the scientific analysis of prejudice and propaganda, and a host of other contributions are only the beginning of what science may do to increase the participation of men in the determination of social policy.” There are certainly advantages to democratized science, as supported by the previous statement, however there is a strong case that democracies limit the possibility for scientific progression.
There is a lot to be said about the individual driven system of science in the United States as well as other democracies across the world. This individualized system makes for a competitive atmosphere in the science community, which can result in a profit driven structure. Especially in modern American society, scientists receive fame and wealth as a result of success. For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci has reached the top of public status in the United States due to his position of director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and top advisor for the Coronavirus pandemic. Fauci has been in the news and has gained publicity partially due to the disparity of some of his views from President Donald Trump. This situation would only be possible in a democracy, such as the United States. In a communist country, the science community is organized and run by the government, limiting the opportunity for individuals to receive recognition for scientific successes.
Regardless of system of government, the main purpose of the scientific community is to serve the public interest of a nation. Overall, the relationship between science and government is a much stronger than what most people may think. The way in which a nation is governed can have a huge effect on the route of scientific progression, as well as many other structures of society.
Sources:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0095.xml
Edel, Abraham. “The Relations of Science and Democracy.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 41, no. 26, 1944, pp. 701–710. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2019766. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.
https://www.ucsusa.org/science-democracy