In this blog post, we’ll examine—with a focus on the global warming debate—how scientific theories can be exploited or distorted when combined with political and social interests, and what conditions are necessary to preserve the objectivity and independence of science.
In the 2006 film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Al Gore, as a politician and environmental activist, strongly raised public awareness of global warming and actively articulated his position that we must respond to climate change. The film explained the scientific basis for global warming while also conveying Gore’s personal experiences and political message. Meanwhile, the British documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, which refuted the mainstream scientific view on global warming, sparked controversy not only regarding its scientific claims but also concerning its production process and funding after it aired on Channel 4 in the UK in 2007. In particular, as suspicions arose regarding ties to the fossil fuel industry—including the oil sector—controversy continued to swirl around the documentary’s intentions and objectivity. As this example illustrates, even a widely recognized scientific topic like global warming can be emphasized or interpreted in a specific direction when conveyed to the public, particularly when intertwined with political and social interests. If we think about it a little more deeply, the “common knowledge” that the Industrial Revolution is the backdrop to global warming and that carbon dioxide is its primary cause has also been repeatedly conveyed in a simplified form through textbooks, the internet, and broadcast media. Of course, current climate science strongly supports the view that the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity is the primary cause of global warming. However, in the process of conveying scientific facts to the public, complex observational data and various variables can be reduced to simple graphs or a single causal relationship; in this process, it is necessary to distinguish between science itself and the social interpretations surrounding it. In this article, by examining the process through which scientific views on climate change have been formed and the background behind the emergence of counterarguments, I will discuss the reasons why science can be distorted or exploited by the interests of external groups, as well as potential solutions to this problem.
Global warming refers to the phenomenon in which the Earth’s average temperature rises over the long term as concentrations of greenhouse gases—particularly carbon dioxide—in the atmosphere increase due to human activities. Scientific theories regarding climate change, such as global warming, first involve observing and measuring specific climate change phenomena, followed by a process of identifying causes to explain those phenomena and understand future changes. Climate science has explained the impact of human activities on recent warming by synthesizing various observational data—such as the relationship between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and long-term temperature increases, as well as the post-industrial rise in fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions—along with physical evidence. However, as industrialization and the use of fossil fuels were identified as the primary causes of global warming—a massive, pan-human issue requiring us to cope with its resulting social and economic problems—industrialization and the industrial structure that has supported it have easily come to be perceived as a kind of “public enemy.” Because of this issue, and given that everyone around the world could fall within the sphere of influence of climate change, global warming has become a topic well-suited for politicians to attract public attention. Here, “exploiting” global warming does not imply that all politicians had such intentions, but rather that a specific political stance, when combined with public concerns about climate change, can influence the acquisition of support and policy legitimacy. Consequently, there was a possibility that scientific facts might be conveyed in an overly simplified or exaggerated manner to attract more public attention. Along with this, the oil and fossil fuel industries—which emit large amounts of carbon dioxide—also became targets of criticism. Conversely, these industries and the groups advocating for them sought to claim that the risks of global warming were exaggerated or to cast doubt on the necessity of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this process, arguments from some scientists and experts were used to convey to the public the notion that carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of climate change and that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. In climate science, while natural factors do influence climate change, there is currently a strong consensus within the scientific community that the primary cause of the warming observed over the past few decades is the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from human activities. Nevertheless, it remains a significant issue that scientific claims regarding global warming can be used as a means to convey specific messages when intertwined with social and political interests. Ultimately, even if scientific knowledge possesses objective grounds in and of itself, the process by which it is selected, interpreted, and communicated can be influenced by social interests.
Global warming is not the only issue to have undergone this process. As scientific theories and the study of natural phenomena increasingly overlap with the realm of human society, they encounter friction with many interest groups. It is entirely possible to refute the basis of a scientific theory. This is because science is a discipline that reviews and revises existing explanations through new evidence and criticism. However, the problem lies not in scientific debate itself, but in the possibility that scientific communities or research findings may be selectively presented or interpreted to align with the interests of specific groups, rather than being evaluated purely on academic grounds. The reason the essence of science can so easily be obscured is that the interests of special interest groups and the scientific community may coincide. This can be interpreted from two perspectives. First, from the perspective of interest groups, the reason lies in the credibility that the objectivity associated with scientists and science conveys to the public. If a group presents its arguments based on objective data and expert opinions that align with its interests, the public is more likely to find those arguments persuasive. Consequently, groups with specific interests can utilize scientists’ expertise and scientific research findings as tools to support their claims. So why do scientists risk distorting scientific facts or straying from the core principles of their respective disciplines? One key reason lies in structural issues surrounding research funding and the research environment. At some point, the distribution of research and development funds—which purported to prioritize “selection and concentration”—began to concentrate on specific mainstream research fields, leaving many researchers struggling with insufficient funding. Consequently, if a particular group provides generous funding, the likelihood increases that research will be conducted to align with that group’s interests and demands. The EBS documentary Climate War, Part 1: Global Warming—The Beginning of a Long War’ explores the historical context of this climate change debate and illustrates the relationship between U.S. policy and the scientific community in the 1980s. In particular, it is important to clarify that the “Nirenberg” mentioned in the original text refers not to Marshall Nirenberg, but to William Nirenberg, who led the 1983 “Changing Climate” report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. This report was a large-scale study examining climate change resulting from rising carbon dioxide levels; while reflecting the scientific consensus of the time, it also presented significant uncertainty and caution regarding the impacts of climate change and policy responses. In this way, when the results of scientific research are interpreted and communicated in conjunction with policy interests, the positions of experts with conflicting views may be emphasized; as a result, the general public—who are non-experts—may find it difficult to distinguish between what is a scientifically established fact and what is an interpretation or a policy judgment.
Science is no longer a pure discipline existing in isolation from society; rather, it is entangled in complex political and social interests. In today’s society, where the gap between disciplines and between academia and reality is steadily narrowing, the solution to this issue cannot lie in completely detaching oneself from these interests. This is because science must inevitably be utilized to solve social problems, and scientists, too, cannot exist in isolation from society. Instead, we must create an environment within that framework where science itself can assert its independent stance. Superficial solutions, such as broad research funding, cannot serve as true solutions. Ultimately, the most fundamental solution must be found within science itself—namely, through the objective and rational judgments and decisions of scientists. However, this must never be limited to simply trusting the conscience of individual scientists. Institutional mechanisms must be established to ensure that research findings and policy-making processes are transparently disclosed, that conflicting research results are independently verified, and that conflicts of interest and research funding relationships are made public. In 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States launched the Center for Science and Democracy to promote decision-making based on science and evidence, foster constructive debate, strengthen the independence of science, and ensure that science is properly utilized in the democratic decision-making process. This demonstrates the need for institutional oversight and open debate to prevent scientific evidence from being distorted or excluded by political interests. While it remains uncertain whether such a system would function properly in a vertically structured and rigid society like South Korea’s, even if a similar system were established, this suggests that relying solely on the conscience of individuals is insufficient. Ultimately, however, the objectivity of scholarship will be preserved when the conscience of every citizen—including scientists who have been shaped by socially sound moral education—functions properly through oversight and verification at both the national level and within their respective academic communities. The objectivity of science is not secured when scientists are completely cut off from society; rather, it can be more firmly upheld when an environment is established in which scientists can continuously test their claims through evidence, verification, and open criticism and debate, even amidst diverse conflicting interests.
