Science and politics
Seed magazine is one of my favorite things to read in my leisure time. While keeping my brain busy creating new pathways and synapses, I get to read about fantastic and fantastical things going on the world of scientific research and philosophy. (I read a recent article "Questioning Consciousness" which proposed ways scientists as well as philosophers could study human consciousness.)But, in the January/February issue, I came across two articles at the intersection of science and political theory. They might be fodder for interesting discussions with your students in comparative politics. Your students could do research to determine what variables are related to the degrees of scientific freedom in the countries they study, and whether the correlations are also causes.
The first article is, "Science and Democracy" by Maggie Wittlin. As I saw the title I was reminded of Fang Lizhi [at left], the noted Chinese physicist whose ideas helped spark the Tiananmen demonstrations in 1989 and Andrei Sakharov, the persecuted Soviet physicist who won a Nobel prize, not for physics, but for peace.Wittlin's article (which is not yet online) notes Chinese innovations in the design of the "Bird's Nest" stadium being built for the Olympics. Then she asks, "Both science and democracy are about freely exchanging ideas, challenging accepted theories, and judging propositions on merit; ideals the Party's tight rule would seem to preclude. China in 2008 prompts the question: Can innovation thrive without democratic governance?"
In the Chinese context, this question goes back to at least the May 4th movement of the early 20th century.
Wittlin points out that the first non-Party ministers in the government were Wan Gang, minister of science and technology and Chen Zhu, minister of health. She also refers to the "return" of Chinese scientists who have studied abroad. Together with increases in government funding for scientific research and growing collaboration with non-Chinese scientists, she implies these are signs of greater intellectual freedom.
Wittlin quotes physicist Xu Liangying as asserting that the pressures for progress in science and technology will push the Chinese regime toward more democracy.
Would your students agree?
And once you have discussed that idea, consider Joshua Roebke's question in "Science at Large" (also not yet online). He asks, "Can the inherent multilateralism of big science be an instrument for renewed international coooperation and peace?"
He points to the financial contributions of 30 countries and the work of 9,000 physicists from 85 countries to create the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.
And in more conflict-prone environments, he asks whether things like the Sesame synchrotron in Jordan, the NATO "Science for Peace" projects in the former USSR, and the Siachen Science Laboratory in Kashmir can promote international cooperation, while reducing conflict.
Roebke asks, "[Can] multilateralism be renewed through the example of Big Science."
"Science," he writes, "succeeds thanks to its openness to contradictory points of view, rationality, and liberal attitudes in the search for solutions, which are certainly also the characteristics for successful diplomacy."
How would your students respond to that idea?
Science is often seen as the source of bigger and better weapons for nation states and non-state groups to use either to force change or preserve the status quo. If we combine Wittlin's and Roebke's ideas, we get to ask, whether science alternatively offers the means to more peaceful and democratic societies and global interactions?
Labels: China, concepts, democratization, globalization
posted by Ken Wedding @ 9:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home