Assignment Task:
Prompt: The politicization of science refers to deliberate manipulation and/or misrepresentation of scientific facts and research by private interest groups (e.g. politicians, corporations, non-profits, etc.) for personal gain. For example, during the mid- and late 1900s, the tobacco industry engaged in a massive marketing campaign to promote public doubt about the relationship between cigarette consumption and lung cancer. Similarly in 2002, the Bush Administration suggested the abortions make women more likely to develop breast cancer, despite the lack of scientific evidence. In the first example, the politicization of science stemmed from a profit motive; whereas in the latter example, the motivation was ideological (to promote an anti-abortion agenda). For Joseph Ganem, this politicization puts scientists into a complicated double bind - either they remain silent, and allow politicians and corporations to misrepresent demonstrated scientific facts for their own agenda; or they openly challenge their claims. While resistance appears as the favorable alternative, it does risk further politicizing the science. The situation is even more complicated with regards, what Fabrice Jotterand refers to as, "post academic science." Unlike pure science that is driven solely by the pursuit of truth, post academic science is explicitly motivated (at least in part) by political and economic interests. For example, the development of nanotechnology merges the interests of a number of different groups from the interests of scientists and researchers attempting to develop new technologies and contribute to their fields; to the pursuit of profit maximization by corporations; to the desire of politicians and governments to bolster their political and military power using nanotechnology. Such science does not happen in the neutral space of the laboratory, but rather is funded and directed by a number of interest groups. Because of this, for Jotterand, post academic science is always political.
So, what do you all think? Do you believe that it's possible to de-politicize science? If so, what do you think is the most effective means of doing so? If not, what factor(s) do you believe make the de-politicization of science impossible or unlikely, and do you think anything can be done to at least address some of the problems arising from that politicization? Finally, how should the problems arising from "post academic science" (e.g., the science of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence) be addressed? Either way, be sure to explain your reasoning.