Who owns science?
I’ve recently had the luxury of diving into the Naomi Klein’s international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
A well researched and an engaging read, this is not a very cheerful, but certainly a thought-provoking, book. It highlights the subtle power of academia in the society. Take, for example, Chicago’s School of Economics record of influence under the intellectual leadership of Milton Friedman. Or, say, the power of a particular funding mechanism in shaping scientific inquiry and controlling access to new knowledge and ideas.
At least in theory, the conduct of science must always be insulated from political interference. Scientists themselves work in institutions that are products of politics, economics and culture. As with any other complex question, there is probably no single answer, rather an interplay of pure and applied research. See, for example, discussion about open access medicine and scientific information from a previous blog.
Most of the debates have centered on the intellectual property rights. A wide spread open access movement, such as PLoS, and others discussed on this blog, offer a direction in the area of dissemination of information.
It is an acknowledged paradox that the problems impacting 90 per cent of the world’s population receive ten per cent of the total resources devoted to science research. Modern science and technology are responsible for the amazing prosperity and other benefits enjoyed in many parts of the world. How can we ensure that our efforts in developing and applying science, and cultivating its social benefits, aid development?
Veronika Litinski coordinates the MaRS venture services programs delivered to entrepreneurs, investors and high-growth companies. She also provides advisory services to entrepreneurs and high growth companies, with a special focus on life sciences markets, specializing in corporate finance and business development.
Klein’s work seems to always be across the board against capitalism, but she never recognizes that a)her motivations (selling books, building a reputation, getting speaking engagements, etc) are all competitive, capitalist based and that b) she doesn’t propose workable solutions for the ills she highlights.
Also, isn’t publish a book, probably about capitalism that feeds on disaster, a way of also feeding on disaster, just one step removed?
There’s no known substitute for capitalism that works. Maybe she’s got an idea, but she doesn’t share it. I’m a ‘lefty’ and support broad social programs and advocater to help-the-poor, limit-the-rich. But at the end of the day, people can only be motivated by an improvement in their lot-in-life. Corporations can only be successful by motivating people. Invariably her criticisms ignore the competitive reality she profits from.
The topic of shielding scientific inquiry from political interference is something I am interested in, though I’m skeptical that a non-scientist author can really do the topic justice, particularly ms. Klein. I’m not likely to buy her book, but might seek it out at a library to avoid funding her capitalist anti-capitalism
-Researchinator
Posted by: researchinator on August 11th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Klein’s book deals with the complex intersection of power/economic interests/social structures. I can’t think what media, other than a book, would work for a reasonably informed and broad discussion of these complex issues, especially given the somewhat subjective (and at times confusing) interpretation of political terminology.
If one reads the book, there is a discussion of an alternative to savage capitalism: democratic socialism, meaning not only socialist parties brought to power through elections but also democratically run workplaces and land holdings. According to Klein, it is a model that has worked in many regions in Scandinavia, co-operatives in Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region, and some evolving economies in Latin America. In Argentina, it is most noticeable in the movement of “recovered companies” that have been resuscitated by their workers and turned into democratically run co-operatives. Does it work in the long run? Perhaps in a decade or so we’ll have an answer…
I thought the most fascinating aspect of the book is its investigation of how an economic theory (with emphasis on THEORY) had a profound effect on the economies and history of several countries. On a different scale, science and politics have been always uneasy mates: from Galileo to sciences and politics of tobacco, nutrition/GM food and international environmental regimes.
Posted by: Veronika Litinski on August 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm