SOCIAL CONCERN IN SCIENCE

Science is not merely a systematized knowledge but rather it is a living and growing body of knowledge. In this then science is distinct from dead traditions attainment essentially involving that human spirit which sustains our determination to question incessantly all existing beliefs and opinions. In this aspect, then, science involves a socio-cultural and politico-economic experience. Specially in the post-modern world order, in the demand of democratisation of knowledge and in the industrial application of science, science become a total sum of experience of masses.

In view of the significant contribution of science and technology in the advancement of frontiers of knowledge, it is imperative to discuss the issues and problems pertaining to “science and society.” Our announcement to this effect brought us enthusiastic response from sociologists of science and science policy scholars from near and far. We regret, however, our inability to print all the papers received, and selection was not an easy task. Some of the articles we still hope to publish in our subsequent issues of PSA. Meanwhile we are happy to announce our decision to devote our greater efforts towards the science and technology issues.

Based on this rich historical data on the Chinese civilization, Joseph Needham had critically examined the myth of scientific superiority of the West. In the historical achievements of the Chinese people, Needham established that the most fundamental scientific discoveries were known to the oriental people long before the Western men emerged out of the Dark Ages. There is no evidence to support the view that anti-science culture existed in China, as was the case with the Christiandom. The Chinese had followed a policy of selective application of Science and Technology.

Notwithstanding the claim of universality of science as reiterated by Vardaraja Raman, resistance to a new scientific paradigm is universal. There are powerful pockets of religious resistance to new knowledge in all nations irrespective of socio-economic systems and political structures. If in India and in China there is no philosophico-cultural resistance to scientific knowledge, lack of advancement of Science and Technology can easily be traced in their socio-economic stratification where democratiasation of knowledge was denied to the people. Knowledge was restricted only to the privileged high-castes (dwijas).

Scientific discoveries lead us to the view as Alan Mackay in his article “The Molecular Basis of Morality”, maintains, that we should recognize the “difference between people, enjoy them, and seek to preserve a great variety of characteristics, if only because they may be needed by others in the future.”

Mackay discusses three spheres of our concurrent existence : biosphere geno-sphere and noos-sphere, and on the basis of the contemporary molecular principles, questions the war policies and preparations. He warns against the bio-spheric hazards, and suggests an engineering of “low wastage society” including rational control over reproduction.

Whereas he denies an absolute right to reproduction to the individual, to the scientist he reminds of the possible serious consequences of experiments in genetic recombination along with complex questions of his loyalty to tribe, town, language, race, religion, or politico-economic systems and states.

With the unprecedented interaction between peoples effected by the increased symbiosis of science and society, responsibility of the scientist has also increased to unprecedented range. The genetic researches can either be blessing or curse to humanity. If the direction of the sciences of the genes and other areas of knowledge are to be determined by politio-military elite’ we join Mackay in his cognitive warning and suggests an openness and free flow of information among the nations, specially in the area of big sciences.

The scientific community, in an organized manner must assert its cognitive influence upon the decision making process of politico-scientific consequencies of Science Policy. The community must prevail over politico-military considerations. We are reminded here of the high handed manner in which the top atomic scientists including James Franck, Leo Szilard, Green t. Seaborg and E. Rabinowitch were brushed aside by the military echelon and the top technocrats at Capitol Hill, when finally deciding the unnecessary use of A-bomb over Japan in closing hours of the World War II.

A direct communication and a petition signed by the scientists at the University of Chicago and addressed to the US President was suppressed en route to the White House. A copy of these was delivered to the President eleven days after Hiroshima by Szilard himself. (Lewis Strauss, Men & Decisions, (1961), p. 194). Alas ! It was too late. The President must have regretted that he could not receive the scientific advice in time. The system had betrayed them who had served it loyally. We are aware of operational difficulties specially in the world fragmented by the walls of ignorance and unwarranted patriotism. And yet we plead for inclusion of the cognitive dissent as a significant component in the decision making process of science policy. We suggest the dissenting opinions should be given due consideration in the decision making discussions and in order to make public debate possible all the dissenting scientific opinions must be made available to the citizens, and the policy formulators.

To be critical is an easy way to earn notoriety or fame. The social critics and philosophers are usually accused to be merely “speculative” and at best impracticals. But our effort through PSA has been to suggest alternatives for actions when offering criticism.

If this volume succeeds in arousing some meaningful controversies in the circles of the sociologists of science and science policy scholars, we shall deem our efforts rewarded.