This blog post discusses the impact of science and technology on democratization and the political participation of scientists. We take an in-depth look at the relationship between science and democracy.
Today, our society values equality and pursues it. Equality is enshrined in the Constitution of Korea, and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. Ironically, the fact that women, people with disabilities, naturalized citizens, and cleaning workers are running as proportional representation candidates for political parties in Korea and are being featured in the media reveals that our society has not yet achieved full equality for these groups. However, this also shows that because our society pursues equality, the message of “guaranteeing equal rights” can make a positive impression on voters. When political participation is added to this equality, it becomes democracy. Democracy is one of the most important ideologies governing the world today, and in the 20th century, dramatic democratization took place or is still underway in countries such as Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, and Cuba.
As someone who aspires to become a scientist, I am curious about how science and technology are related to democracy. In his book, The Same and Not the Same, Professor Roald Hoffmann views democracy as a kind of social invention that interacts with science and technology.
He describes the development of chemistry and its applications, from the purple dye of ancient Rome to the widely used synthetic dye indigo, and compares democracy in ancient Athens with democracy today. In doing so, he argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably promoted the democratization of society. Here, science refers to the disciplines that fall under the categories of natural science and engineering.
Although science and technology have been used for negative purposes such as war and torture, they have generally brought about positive changes in society and provided more people with daily necessities and comforts that were once enjoyed only by the privileged classes. However, I believe that this argument does not quite match the actual process of democratization.
For example, China is one of the world’s leading countries in terms of scientific and technological development, but it is not a democracy. If, as Hoffman argues, “science inevitably contributes to the democratization of society,” then democracy should also tend to develop alongside scientific progress.
Ultimately, Hoffman’s argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of causality. Since the Industrial Revolution, science and technology have enabled mass production and provided material wealth to the masses. However, this is more effective in societies where democratization has already progressed, and the contribution of science and technology may be limited in societies where democratization has not been achieved. In societies where democracy is firmly established, social resources can be concentrated on improving the welfare of voters, but in societies where this is not the case, the benefits may go only to a privileged few, or social resources may not be concentrated properly, resulting in limited achievements in science and technology.
Hoffman also discusses the role of science and scientists in democracy, citing environmental issues as an example. He argues that it is our right and duty to know about science, asking who can offer informed opinions if chemists do not understand chemistry, and saying that it is undemocratic for citizens to blindly believe chemists because they do not understand chemistry. Furthermore, Hoffman opposes Platonism and argues that scientists and engineers should not rule society. His argument is based on the fact that scientists are accustomed to “analyzing” phenomena within their own research systems, but social problems cannot be solved simply by analysis. Scientists value rationality and tend to want a society full of emotions and group behavior to be governed by rational principles. He cites communism as an example, pointing out that communism aimed to create a “scientific social system” but failed because it was based on the overconfidence that society could develop indefinitely. Therefore, he argues that scientists should participate in politics as advisors but not hold real power, as there is a risk that they will fall into the trap of believing that only scientists are rational. However, he also admits in another part of his article that he may have exaggerated somewhat, and that the participation of scientists in politics is not necessarily better or worse than that of existing politicians.
The author strongly agrees that citizens need to understand science. This is because if citizens do not understand science, they will not be able to properly judge the claims of some capitalists and employed scientists, which may result in disadvantages for them. Today, with the development of the Internet and networks, scientific and technological information is easily accessible, but there is also a lot of misinformation, so scientific knowledge remains an important factor. A lack of scientific literacy can lead to inequality due to knowledge gaps, which is the basis for emphasizing the need for education as a right and obligation in a democratic society. However, I disagree with Hoffman’s opinion that scientists should not have power in politics. Of course, as Hoffmann argues, some scientists are unaware of the differences between social issues and natural science and believe that scientific opinions are overly rational. However, this is a problem that applies only to some scientists, and non-scientists may show similar tendencies in their own fields. Such generalizations about scientists can have a negative effect, causing people to shy away from them. Currently, scientists are relatively uninvolved in politics and are unable to fully reflect their values in society. In addition, there are many cases of irrationality in budget allocation and execution, and scientists need to participate more in politics. If scientists are only given the role of advisors without any power, they will lack a sense of responsibility, and those who receive their advice will find it difficult to respect them. Therefore, it is reasonable for scientists to have the same authority as non-scientists.
In this article, we examined Roald Hoffmann’s arguments on the impact of science and technology and scientists on democracy and refuted them. Hoffmann argues that science inevitably contributes to democratization and that ordinary citizens must understand science in order to maintain democracy, but he says that political participation by scientists is undesirable. However, I argue that science and technology do not have a direct impact on democratization and that political participation by scientists should be encouraged. In today’s scientific age, the relationship between science and politics is worth considering, and I hope that readers will also give serious thought to this issue.
