Politics is an inextricable barrier to science
Read my shit on the reg.
The process of creating scientific knowledge cannot be separated from the surrounding political context, and scientists should explore this fusion instead of trying to “depoliticize” it. Creating scientific knowledge is a circular process that includes accessing existing information, testing assumptions, and application of knowledge acquired, all of which require allocation, governance, and exchange of resources - political activities. From global issues to office politics, scientists must navigate people and resources to create knowledge. Viewing politics as decisions about resource allocation instead of a simple “left vs. right” continuum can help us to thoroughly examine the political barriers to knowledge creation.
To understand how creating knowledge is political we must reframe the way we think of politics; it’s not just about left/right narratives. “Knowledge itself is power”, according to the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon, and with politics being about the allocation of power, it would follow that creating knowledge/power is political. Osamu Shimomura’s discovery of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) doesn’t sound political until you consider who gets access to expensive treatments resulting from his discovery, but indeed every part of knowledge creation touches politics. When Shimomura collected jellyfish in the Puget Sound he allocated his most precious resources: time and energy. Later, the Nobel committee awarded $1.4 million to Shimomura, Roger Tsien, and Martin Chalfie - a political decision concerning resource allocation. The discovery of GFP was filled with political barriers inherent in the cycle of knowledge creation.
Funding is a huge barrier to scientific knowledge creation. Without a publicly funded Fulbright travel grant Shimomura may not have made it to the Puget sound. While the Fulbright program facilitates cultural exchange and diplomacy, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world. The NIH agenda is set by “politicians” including the NIH Director, patient advocacy groups (sometimes via pharmaceutical companies), scientific societies, and NIH-funded scientists. Once the agenda is set, the scientific merit of each proposal is determined by several factors. At best 20.6% of applicants received funding in 2020, meaning grant seekers must tailor their grants to gain an edge. Successful applicants know the tricks to get funded - including adding a senior investigator to your grant or knowing the reviewers which helps scientists tailor applications from their perspective. The insular nature of the review process has been criticized for creating barriers to innovative projects, but NIH reviewers strongly disagree that politics plays a role in funding These maneuvers may seem politically neutral as they don’t follow the left/right dichotomy, but decisions about resource allocation are the basis for politics and are inseparable from science.
Once funding is received science is shaped by another set of political barriers at the university level. Within every science department sits a chairperson that must cultivate science, showcasing their skills as a leader. One way that the chair can mold a department is by hiring new faculty. Chairs can also persuade faculty to collate projects forming large grants to buy expensive pieces of equipment, therefore creating access to otherwise out-of-reach experiments and shaping science that comes out of the department. In this way techniques, funding, and even the questions asked are subject to political barriers at the university level.
Publication is a critical component of knowledge creation, rife with political barriers. Although the review process is blinded, science has become a hyper-specialized community where the identity of well-known researchers can shine through the weak veil of anonymity. Further, journal retractions have recently been considered another way politics can block or shape new knowledge. Retraction is the most severe way to address errors in published science, however, it is difficult to discern whether retractions are the result of fraud, error, or bias. In any case, by deciding what gets and stays published, scientists can potentially inject their own personal ideas into what knowledge is viewed in the world and through what lens.
Once published, the politics of access to scientific knowledge create yet another barrier to building new knowledge. Access to information is more democratized now than ever with open-access publication, but most journals that house scientific information are costly. The popular shadow library known as Sci-hub provides free access to millions of research papers and thus has been inundated with copyright infringement and international legal battles since its inception. Sci-hub uses leaked credentials with the goal of removing barriers in the way of science. However, access is only half the battle of access. Even if data were freely available, the public (and even scientists from other disciplines) generally lack the specialized training to be able to accurately interpret findings, making replication unfeasible and siloing new knowledge creation. Education can be highly variable depending on region and demographic, with leaks in even the most thoughtfully constructed pipelines to science careers. Access and education are political obstacles that will always influence knowledge creation.
Application of science is the final political barrier before the cycle of knowledge creation begins again, but deciding which evidence to apply is not an entirely scientific pursuit. There is no data that tells us what is objectively “best” for humanity unless we first define “best” subjectively. For example, climate change has been notoriously partisan, but both parties are beginning to agree that the climate is changing as a result of human activity. Now, we’re faced with decisions about the “best” corrective action: how do we apply preliminary knowledge about new technologies for carbon capture? What constitutes clean energy? Could nuclear energy be safe after Fukushima? Applying some technologies over others prevents new data from being collected on the sidelined technologies. New technology is risky because data is scant and uncertainty is high, leaving decision-makers susceptible to the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that relates the probability of events to the ease at which the event comes to mind. For example, a legislator might vote against a nuclear power plant after recently hearing about the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters, disregarding safety data as too new or not robust enough. Deciding what scientific knowledge to apply and how are political decisions that are typically subject to the ideas (and heuristics) of policy-makers.
Policy itself can be a barrier to knowledge creation, but not all barriers need to be breached. Policies don’t always line up with the latest scientific information, and even if they could, we might ask ourselves to what extent? COVID-19 mitigation policies have been highly variable in the US as health agencies have tried to support mask policies, school closures, and lockdowns with data, seeking the safest way forward in terms of COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, the data does not tell us what risk we should find acceptable, so personal freedoms take varying priority over scientific knowledge. This presents a problem for epidemiological studies as the most accurate assessment of risk would be best obtained by completely controlling human behavior. If it could, should science inform what balance of personal freedom and governmental oversight is appropriate? If certain policies are thwarting knowledge creation or blatantly ignoring new knowledge, the inseparable nature of science and politics begs the question: should scientific data take priority over personal freedoms?
Individual values are the foundation for political barriers to science and they cannot be separated from the scientist. Shimomura valued the pursuit of science, but animal rights activists might find more value in a jellyfish's life. Science can’t determine whose value system is valid, but most people would side with Shimomura, sacrificing the lives of jellyfish in exchange for countless medical applications. Values are what allow partisan politics to seep into all aspects of life including science. Most people view science as the source for objective truth, whereas most policy issues are subjective and not easy to quantify. Thus, science can be an effective tool for bolstering political arguments; claiming that your policies are “on the side of science” makes the opposition look ignorant and objectively wrong. However, science doesn’t “choose” sides; it serves as a tool to understand the world, offering no instructions on morality. We make decisions based on our values, which require compromise and will always present challenges to creating new knowledge.
Iit may be tempting to imagine that political barriers could be avoided by muting exposure to world events, funding problems, or media, but using science as a way of knowing and creating solutions is itself a political decision. From inception, the question is inseparable from the political ideology of the scientist. Then, there are political barriers around how to explore a question. When Shimomura was accepted into Pharmacy college he couldn’t conduct the experiments he wanted to because of equipment limitations so he was limited to inorganic reactions. Even if money or equipment were no object, time and energy are always finite. The project that led to Shimomura’s doctoral degree and eventual discovery was a difficult and risky project. He had to ask tough questions about his studies: Is there enough evidence to pursue this question? Is this where my resources will be best spent? Determining the answer to these questions is a political task inherent in science.
As we create knowledge we should keep in mind that countless thinkers have cautioned us against the perils of hubris. Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman once said “scientists, in a way, are deluded in that they have the idea that there is one way of knowing things.” Every bit of knowledge we uncover comes with power and resources that will be allocated. Just as Shimomura’s political decision to spend his time being curious about jellyfish produced an ocean of possibility for humanity, if we can allocate curiosity instead of surety to the politics of discovery, we might be able to better use science to reveal truths about the world.
“My dear, you are a mathematician. You're even more, you're a philosopher of mathematics. So do this for me: Tell me the final number.”
― Yevgeny Zamyatin, We