This blog post examines how science and technology interact with society in the democratic era and explores the meaning of scientists’ political participation.
Today, our society holds equality as a vital value and strives relentlessly to realize it. The importance of equality is also emphasized in the Korean Constitution, and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. The current trend in Korea, where women, persons with disabilities, naturalized foreigners, and sanitation workers are listed as proportional representation candidates for political parties and reported in the media, can be seen as part of this social change. However, the reality that they are specially promoted paradoxically shows that our society has not yet provided them with full equality. Simultaneously, this suggests that equality has become established as a value that leaves a positive impression on voters. Political efforts to ensure equality can be seen as leading directly to the core of democracy.
Democracy is one of the dominant ideologies in the world today, and dramatic democratization occurred in many countries, including Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, and Cuba, as the 20th century progressed. The nature of the relationship between science and technology and democracy during this process is an intriguing aspect.
In his book 『The Same and Not the Same』, Professor Roald Hoffmann views democracy as a social invention and explains it within the context of its interaction with science and technology. He describes the development of chemistry and its applications, from the Roman purple dye Tyrian purple to the widely used synthetic indigo of today, while comparing ancient Athenian democracy with modern democracy. Hoffmann argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably contributed to the democratization of society, where science refers to disciplines encompassing natural sciences and engineering. He explains that while science and technology have been used for negative purposes like war or torture, they have mostly brought positive changes to society, making necessities and conveniences, once enjoyed only by the privileged, accessible to broader segments of the population.
However, I believe Hoffmann’s argument contains many flaws when considering the actual democratization process. For example, China is one of the world’s leading scientific and technological powers, yet its level of democratization lags behind. If science inevitably contributes to a society’s democratization, as Hoffmann claims, then democracy should have developed alongside scientific advancement.
Ultimately, I believe Hoffmann’s argument contains errors stemming from a misunderstanding of causality. Since the Industrial Revolution, science and technology have enabled mass production, providing material prosperity to the masses. However, this is only possible in societies where democratization has already progressed to a certain degree. In places where democracy is poorly realized, the benefits of science and technology inevitably diminish. In societies where democracy is well-implemented, social capacity is concentrated towards improving voters’ lives, allowing the fruits of science, technology, and industrialization to reach the general public. Conversely, in societies with inadequate democracy, these benefits accrue only to a privileged few, or social capabilities become dispersed, reducing outcomes.
Meanwhile, Hoffmann discusses the role of science and scientists in democracy, citing environmental issues as an example. He argues that understanding science is both a citizen’s right and duty, posing the question: if a chemist doesn’t understand chemistry, who can provide accurate information? He contends that a situation where citizens who lack scientific knowledge must unconditionally trust chemists is undemocratic. Hoffmann opposes Platonism, arguing that scientists or engineers should not rule the world. The Platonism he refers to here signifies the philosopher-king system proposed by Plato and Aristotle—a government by experts—inspired by Socrates’ execution under democracy. According to Hoffmann, while scientists tend to pursue rationality, social problems cannot be analyzed by simple rationality alone. He points out that if scientists gain power, they may instead fall into arrogance.
However, Hoffmann simultaneously acknowledges that his argument is exaggerated, adding that scientists participating in politics are neither better nor worse than existing politicians.
I strongly agree with the argument that citizens should understand science. If citizens lack scientific knowledge, they can easily be swayed by the claims of certain capitalists or the scientists they employ. While the development of the internet and other technologies today makes information about science and technology easily accessible, there is also a great deal of misinformation, making individual scientific knowledge still crucial. If individuals lack knowledge in various fields, including science, inequality arising from knowledge gaps can occur. Therefore, in a democratic society, education must be both a right and an obligation for citizens.
However, it is difficult to agree with Hoffmann’s assertion that scientists should not hold power in politics. Even if scientists fail to recognize the difference between natural and social sciences and become arrogant, this is not solely a problem of scientists. Non-scientists can also face the same issue within their own fields. Even if such tendencies are stronger among scientists, Hoffmann’s generalized argument could instead lead society to shun scientists, having a negative impact. In fact, scientists currently have low political participation relative to their numbers, failing to sufficiently reflect their values in society. Furthermore, there are often instances of insufficient rationality in societal budget allocation and execution. Therefore, I believe there is significant potential for scientists’ participation to lead to better policies.
Hoffmann argues scientists should serve as powerless advisors in politics, but in reality, advisors without authority may feel less accountable and struggle to gain respect from those receiving their advice. Therefore, scientists should also be granted equal power to non-scientists.
Thus far, I have examined and countered Hoffmann’s arguments regarding the influence of science and technology and scientists on democracy. Hoffmann asserts that science inevitably contributes to democratization and that citizens must understand science to maintain democracy, yet he argues that scientists’ political participation is undesirable. However, I contend that science and technology do not directly impact democratization, and that scientists’ political participation should instead be encouraged. In today’s scientific age, I believe the relationship between science and politics is a topic worthy of serious consideration. I encourage readers of this article to take time to reflect on this issue.
