In light of the recent snap election in the UK, I thought it
would be very fitting to discuss how politics and science affect each other and
interact in society. This is something that I feel is often overlooked in
television broadcasts, leader’s debates, and may not be considered as important
as some other hot-topics; it can be hard for someone not so politically savvy
to extract the important information of how the government is going to aid or
promote scientific research. The fact is that advancing scientific research can
affect a plethora of policies within healthcare, education, technology and the
economy, and science and politics need to work together and become more connected.
"Science and politics need to work together and become more connected..."
For example, advancements in the fields of biology and
biomedical science can influence national vaccination programmes, NHS
healthcare strategies, and legislation regarding abortion and euthanasia. Chemical
and biological research may also dictate the legalisation and classification of
various drugs and food manufacturing. Technological advancements can influence
national security and data protection. Research in engineering progresses the
infrastructure of buildings, train services, and generally the towns and cities
around us. These are just a few examples and the list really is endless.
In the past decade there has been some controversy
surrounding the funding of scientific research from government bodies, and
generally, the relationship between politics and science is tenuous. In
essence, government agencies decide how much funding is allocated to scientific
research councils. Without delving into the specifics, this allocation of
funding is assessed on the basis of scientific IMPACT and contribution to overall
economic growth, or what ministers believe are currently the most pressing
issues. This only worsens when budget constraints are extremely tight.
Many scientists and professors are conflicted about this as
they do not feel that this is ‘good science’ and the pressure on making a huge
impact does not promote scientific excellence. In this way, it could be perceived
as ‘good science’ being assessed on the ability to write grant proposals, or
what research possesses the biggest wow factor.
However, politics and policy makers do positively affect
science too; to fully reap the benefits of research, certain political parties
choose to increase research and development budgets for scientific bodies, or
change the regulations for research meaning that scientists have more freedom
in decision making.
"There is more recently a focus on science communication and public engagement"
In addition to controlling funding, policy determination can
affect what technologies, products and pharmaceuticals come to market, and in
some cases can prevent scientists from speaking out. Another important point to consider is the implications that Brexit (the UKs decision to leave the EU) has on science - this may hugely affect
scientific funding as the EU is a large source of scientific funding (Horizon
2020), and may also affect the free movement of skilled scientists taking their assets and research groups to the UK. As well as
this, there is more recently a focus on science communication and public
engagement, and whether research can be communicated effectively to the public.
This is another reason for promoting good science communication, and why all
scientists should be working on improving this.
This is just a brief summary of some of the
issues surrounding the relationship between politics and science, and each of
these points deserves a whole blog post in their own right! Please do let me
know your opinions/thoughts/feedback in the comments section, as it would be
great if this could be an open discussion.
Further Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment