In this blog post, we will look at how science and technology interact with society in the age of democracy and what political participation of scientists means.
Today, our society considers equality to be an important value and is constantly striving to achieve it. The importance of equality is also emphasized in the Korean Constitution, and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also states that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights. Currently, the fact that women, people with disabilities, naturalized foreigners, and cleaning workers are being listed as candidates for proportional representation by political parties and reported in the media in Korea can be said to be part of this social change. However, the fact that they are being specially promoted shows that our society has not yet provided them with full equality. At the same time, it suggests that equality has become a value that makes a positive impression on voters. Political efforts to ensure equality can be seen as leading to the core of democracy.
Democracy is one of the ideologies that dominate the world today, and in the 20th century, many countries, including South Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, and Cuba, underwent dramatic democratization. It is interesting to see how science and technology relate to democracy in this process.
In his book “The Same and Not the Same,” Professor Roald Hoffmann sees democracy as a social invention and explains it in the context of its interaction with science and technology. He compares ancient Athenian democracy with today’s democracy while describing the development of chemistry and its applications, from the purple dye Tyrian purple of the Roman period to indigo, which is widely used today. Hoffmann argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably contributed to the democratization of society, where science refers to the study of natural science and engineering. He explains that while science and technology have also been used for negative purposes such as war and torture, they have mostly brought about positive changes in society, allowing a wider range of people to enjoy the necessities and conveniences that were previously enjoyed only by the privileged.
However, I believe that Hoffmann’s argument is incorrect when considering the actual process of democratization. For example, China is one of the world’s leading science and technology powers, but its level of democratization is not up to par. If science inevitably contributes to the democratization of society, as Hoffmann claims, then democracy should also develop alongside the development of science.
In the end, I believe that Hoffmann’s argument contains errors due to a misunderstanding of causality. Science and technology have provided the public with material abundance since mass production became possible after the Industrial Revolution. However, this is possible in societies that have already achieved a certain level of democratization, and the benefits of science and technology are bound to be less in places where democracy is not well realized. In a well-democratic society, the fruits of science and industrialization can be returned to the general public because social capacity is focused on improving the lives of voters. On the other hand, in a poorly democratic society, the benefits are only given to a few privileged groups, or the social capacity is dispersed and the results are reduced.
Meanwhile, Hoffmann discusses the role of science and scientists in a democracy, citing environmental issues as an example. He argues that understanding science is a citizen’s right and duty, and raises the question of who can provide correct information if a chemist does not know chemistry, for example. It is not democratic for citizens who do not know science to unconditionally trust what a chemist says. Hoffmann argues against Platonism, saying that scientists or technicians should not rule the world. The Platonism that Hoffmann refers to here refers to the philosopher’s rule proposed by Plato, Aristotle, and others, which is a system of government by experts, in the wake of the execution of Socrates for democratic politics. According to Hoffmann, scientists tend to be rational, but social problems cannot be analyzed with mere rationality, and if scientists have power, they can fall into arrogance.
However, Hoffmann also admits that his argument is exaggerated, adding that the participation of scientists in politics is no better or worse than that of existing politicians.
I strongly agree with the claim that citizens should know science. If citizens do not know science, they can easily be deceived by the claims of some capitalists or the scientists they hire. Today, information about science and technology is easily available thanks to the development of the Internet and other technologies, but there is also a lot of misinformation, so personal scientific knowledge is still important. If individuals do not know about science and other knowledge, inequality can arise due to the knowledge gap, so education should be a right and a duty of citizens in a democratic society.
However, it is difficult to agree with Hoffmann’s opinion that it is better for scientists not to have power in politics. Even if scientists are not aware of the difference between natural and social sciences and are arrogant, this is not only a problem for scientists. Even non-scientists can face the same problem in their field. Even if scientists are more likely to have this tendency, Hoffmann’s generalized claim may have a negative impact by making society avoid scientists. On the contrary, I think that there is a lot of room for scientists to participate in order to lead to better policies, as scientists currently do not fully reflect their values in society due to their low political participation rate compared to their number, and there is often a lack of rationality in the allocation and execution of society’s budget.
Hoffmann argues that scientists should play the role of an advisor without power in politics, but in reality, an advisor without power may have a lower sense of responsibility and it is difficult for the advisor to be respected by the advisor. Therefore, he believes that scientists should also have equal power to non-scientists.
In this article, we have examined and refuted Hoffmann’s argument about the impact of science and scientists on democracy. Hoffmann argues that science inevitably contributes to democratization, and that democracy can only be maintained if citizens understand science, but he also says that the political participation of scientists is not desirable. However, I argued that science and technology cannot directly affect democratization, and that scientists’ political participation should be encouraged. I think that the relationship between science and politics in the current age of science is a topic worth considering. I hope that readers of this article will take the time to think about it as well.
