Solving the Science + Politics Equation
If only politics could be as definitive as science and math. Unlike politics ideologies, scientific theories usually/are supposed to work out in practice. In theory and in practice 1+1=2.
But with politics 1+1= ⊞ or 11 or 🐮.
The difference between science and politics left me wondering:
Science + politics = ?
I’ll explore the influence that politics has had on science, specifically how different political structures influence science. To further explore that question, I will characterize the political world that exists currently.
Politics?
Political debates are my favorite comedy shows.
Top politicians often fail to maintain their campaign promises and end up in ironic situations. The Liberals portray themselves as the party that will implement progressive green policies. Justin Trudeau signed the Paris climate treaty at the UN in 2016, stating Canada’s commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Ironically, the Liberals contradict themselves when they bought the Trans Mountain oil pipeline for $4.5B.
There is merit in the economic opportunities that will come from this purchase. However, attempting to improve and secure employment in an unsustainable industry is the wrong type of investment. Oil is a non-renewable energy source that would only add to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.
These things happen at the city level as well. Take into consideration the Gardiner Expressway East. It is a 1.3km section extension of the highway in which its construction never continued. In 1999, the Toronto City Council voted to demolish it since it was too expensive to maintain. However, Tory is now proposing to continue its construction, despite many urban planner’s disapproval of his plan.
“In a time of fiscal restraint, it is irresponsible to spend an additional half a billion dollars for an inferior solution when we have so many other pressing financial needs.” -Paul Bedford reporting on the story, from The Star.
Paul like many others believes that the traffic between Jarvis St. and the Don River (the extension Tory proposes) is not a significant problem. Only 3% of all drivers that access downtown use this intersection, hence investment in this area is not as important as other projects.
Often times, I find myself frustrated at politicians’ inability to fulfill their promises. Truth is that many party’s campaign promises are short-lived, and mainly intended to win votes, rather than fulfilling the needs of the public.
Policies designed to win votes often end up fulfilling the benefits of the public. However, once parties reach office, they rarely follow-through, leaving voters frustrated. It’s a democratic process, but there is a failure within our execution of a political system to carry the results.
Democracy is a funny thing.
I like to think of politics as thought experiments. Communism and democracy sound good in theory. Yet, they always play out differently when put into practice. One could argue that communism would have worked better if Russia had a stronger economy to begin with. If Russia had more wealth, then it could have supported the general public equally and sufficiently.
Whereas, democracy has played out pretty funny, specifically within the US considering Trump’s impeachment. Lindsey Graham believed that Trump’s request for the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden was an abuse of power; hence, violates democratic values.
Interestingly, there was a period of time when the world was torn between fighting for their own idea of a perfect political world. The US fought hard for their capitalistic, democratic ideals; while Russia fought hard for communism. This clashing belief led to a fight of “who’s better?” Otherwise known as the Cold War. It furthers argues, “which political structure can innovate the fastest and best?”
What better way to look at this than through a case study of the 8-year Space Race? The Space Race was a competition between the two Cold War rivals in which the US and Russia fought to see who could be the fastest to develop the best technologies. I want to look at how their political structures influence their scientific development.
Hypothesis: The main incentive to innovate was the competition between the two nations, not an internal drive. Alone, neither the US or Russia would have invested so much into science if it hadn’t been for competition and fear of Russia.
Russia launched its first satellite into orbit, Sputnik.
The US saw Russia’s innovation as a threat because Sputnik has the same technology that can be used to launch a nuclear warhead at any city. Hence, the US stepped up its game and launched Explorer 1, which was the first American satellite to reach orbit. This lead to a series of events:
Sputnik 3 launched on May 15, 1958. (Russia)
Pioneer 1 launched on October 11, 1958. (US)
Luna 1 launched on January 2, 1959(Russia)
Pioneer 4 launched on March 3, 1959(US)
Political competition drives scientific breakthroughs and acts as a catalyst. Furthermore, this reveals the influence that politics has on science. Scientific studies are funded when somebody believes that they can gain political power (there are exceptions).
Both the US and Russia economically invested in nuclear physics during the 1940s, rather than education, healthcare, or environmental conservation. This is because they thought that the advancement of space technologies would help create better nuclear weapons due to overlapping scientific knowledge. A solid understanding of nuclear physics would provide a significant advantage to win a war.
Science doesn’t exist in its own bubble.
Overall, science + politics = very specific scientific breakthroughs funded for political purposes.
Unfortunately, the urgency for scientific discovery is no longer as intense as it was during the Cold War. Innovative and creative ideas have now reached a point where we are beginning to question their ethicality, and the government has to step in and control it.
As of March 2019, Japan changed its guidelines regarding the human-animal chimera (half human and half animal cell) issue. Now, human-animal embryos can be transplanted into a surrogate animal and brought into term. Whereas, this is banned within other countries such as Canada.
So perhaps, this changes:
science + politics = very specific scientific breakthroughs funded for political purposes… into:
science + politics (+ethics) = specific scientific breakthroughs that have political benefits, and are restricted by ethics.
