Saturday June 14, 2008
I’m currently reading a book of essays on the subject of neuroethics for a review that I’ll be writing for Metapsychology Online. Without wanting to anticipate the content of the review, which will be going online some time in August (once I’ve moved house – about which more anon – and by which time I’ll be sitting in a field listening to the sublime Leonard Cohen playing at the Big Chill festival…) I wanted to write about one small but persistent concern of the papers gathered together in the book, and that is the concern with the public understanding of science.
The idea of public understanding of science is one that is the subject of increasing attention, and for good reason: more than ever before, we live in a world in which scientific advances are demanding renewed ethical reflection, and the wider an understanding of science there can be, the more informed public debate can be. So I am all for the public understanding of science. It seems something the importance of which should not be underestimated.
The web-page of the Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science, a post currently held by Richard Dawkins, provides the following uplifting view of what such an understanding might be able to do:
The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all.
A common trope in discussions of the public understanding of the sciences is the idea that the public are uninformed or otherwise ignorant, and that better dissemination of information – either through an improved education system, through greater efforts on the part of scientists, through increased responsibility in what is no often doubt deeply shoddy media reporting in relation to the sciences, or through (although this is rarely said directly) a bit more effort on the part of the general public – would solve the problem. The argument is simple: the public fear science because of ignorance; and that this fear can be driven out by greater understanding. This is echoed in the volume I am reading. ‘Many’, one contributor in the book writes, ‘are the uniformed or the mal-informed; many are scared.’ The fear, we are to infer, is a result of misinformation, and nothing else.
And yet, what this view of the public understanding of science leaves out, very frequently, is an appreciation of the broader political and ethical issues that are involved in scientific research. It takes, that is to say, scientific research as a good in itself, and the problem is considered to be only that of communication. Yet I’m not sure if this is really a sustainable view. There are deeper structural problems here that raise serious ethical questions, questions that are often ignored by public champions of science. Take, for example, president George W. Bush’s announcement of increased funding for scientific research in 2002. As reported in the New York Times, a large proportion of this money was funneled towards defence-related projects. More recently, in 2005 the Guardian newspaper reported that a third of UK public spending in science was funded by the Ministry of Defence (see the link here). Indeed, for scientists working in some fields – robotics, for example – it is hard to find projects that are not directly or indirectly related to defence interests. Whilst we should indeed celebrate the “excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles” – and how I wish that this was the main thrust of scientific endeavour in the world – we should also address the uncomfortable truth that a serious proportion of the research that is carried out in our universities and our laboratories is not about this excitement and this awe, but is about working on specific problems relating to specific, and frequently questionable, defence interests. And whilst there may or may not be legitimate concerns with defence, at the very least it would be profoundly naive to consider the defence industry as one that is straightforwardly concerned with the greater welfare of humankind. There are questions here that it is right and proper to ask.
Even if we leave to one side these defence interests, there are many other areas of research which raise similarly troubling questions. Given the range of commercial interests that lie behind scientific research, we cannot assume that this research is motivated by benevolence or a desire for the greater welfare of all; and in an age of ever closer relationships between university science departments and these commercial interests, there are many questions that should be a part of public discourse, but that frequently are not.
The advocates of the public understanding of science are frequently silent on these matters. This silence does nothing to help their avowed aim of increasing the public’s understanding and appreciation of the sciences. Being uninformed or mal-informed may indeed give rise to irrational fears, and these fears can certainly be dispelled by an improvement in communication. Yet there are other more rational fears, fears that are rooted not in ignorance, but in a cooler appreciation of the reality of how scientific research actually works, both socially and economically. To address these fears, the scientific community need to do more than simply put their case better to an ignorant public. They need to engage more deeply with hard political and ethical questions about the motivations and interests that lie behind the research with which they are involved; and they need to address some of the deeper structural problems that arise as a result of these motivations and interests.
I am, as I have said, all for the public understanding of science. But if we are genuinely interested in such understanding, then we cannot leave out these difficult questions about the uses to which our research and our public money is ultimately being put.
See also: Scientists for Global Responsibility.
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
Longing for Certainty: Meditation Book Review: Friday July 29, 2005
Bhikkhu Nyanasobhano’s poetic reflections on meditation.
Just War: Thursday March 20, 2008
Five years in Iraq, and the crassness of Prince Harry’s headgear.
The Buddha and the Sahibs: Review: Monday August 1, 2005
Charles Allen goes in pursuit of the British orientalists
In Praise of Emmanuel Levinas: Thursday November 2, 2006
The 100th anniversary of the philosopher of ethics and responsibility, Emmanuel Levinas.
Neuroethics: Tuesday August 19, 2008
Concerning my review of Glannon’s “Defining Right and Wrong in Brain Science”.
Open Investigation: Wednesday November 16, 2005
More on the Dalai Lama and Brain Science.
The Dalai Lama and Brain Science: Tuesday August 2, 2005
Scientists protest against Dalai Lama’s invitation to a conference on neuroscience. Is such a protest justified?
Scholars and Meditators: Friday May 1, 2009
Meditation, scholarship and the mind’s many functions.
Easy Does It...: Sunday February 19, 2006
What if ethics was easy?
Vain, Deluded, Pigheaded, Secretive, Bigoted...: Thursday February 14, 2008
That’s the trouble with the mind – it has a mind of it’s own.
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.