The Scientist in Society 

One of the world’s most respected scientific figures, Sir Michael Atiyah, was recently invited by the Mathematical Sciences Foundation to deliver a public lecture in College on the relationship of Science with Society. Now Sir Michael may be the greatest living mathematician in the world today, but his lecture was uninspiring to say the least. He merely skimmed the surface of all major debates concerning the role of scientists in society, doing little more than mention that such debates existed. In all, his lecture was more a collection of disjointed facts than an insightful analysis of any of the issues involved. Disappointing as the lecture was, it did have one positive side effect. It sparked a minor debate amongst some people in College on the real or imagined lack of social awareness among scientists. Many in the ‘Arts Block’ (and at least one prominent member of the Science faculty) were heard to wonder why scientists should so readily accept invitations to speak on subjects that they knew little or nothing about, however far their expertise may extend elsewhere. These same people also observed that too many scientists today (though Sir Michael may be an exception, for all we know) are extremely conservative in their social and political views, and that viewed as a community, scientists are rather less than liberal and more towards the political right-wing than other intellectuals. This situation is puzzling when viewed naively. It is a common perception amongst intellectuals that when the Age of Reason dawned, Science, with its emphasis on rational thought and skepticism of received wisdom, had a profound effect on the lives of those who practiced it. Thus it is believed that those who spent much of their adult lives applying the principles of the scientific method to solving the mysteries of the natural world around them also applied the same principles to reject existing dogmas, question the existing social order and to challenge Authority in its various guises. In short, scientists were liberal then and they are conservative now. Since none of these basic principles of the scientific method have changed over the last several hundred years, the reason for this apparent difference in attitudes remains a mystery.  However, neither of these two perceptions is entirely correct. When viewed in perspective, neither are today’s scientists any more right wing than one might expect, nor were the scientists of yesteryear the paragons of virtue that they are made out to be. It is true that scientific enquiry had from the time of Galileo on occasion come into conflict with organised religion. In particular, leading thinkers and philosophers at the time of the Renaissance and afterwards had often challenged the authority and dogmas of the Catholic Church, and other Christian sects. Yet scientists in general were hardly liberal promoters of social change. Many, such as Francis Bacon - a senior civil servant - and Isaac Newton - at one time Master of the Mint in His Majesty’s Government - were a part of authority themselves. Newton’s harsh fiscal policies with regard to Ireland in fact drew the ire of Jonathan Swift, who parodied and criticised him on a regular basis. Other scientists of the time were hardly less reactionary. Scientists were drawn from the privileged classes - many were members of the landed gentry. They were well educated at the finest universities and for the most part had no financial worries, thus enabling them to ignore the problems that beset the lower classes, immerse themselves in their investigations and continue to enjoy the benefits of their status in society. Such European luminaries as Euler, Lagrange, Lavoisier and Gauss enjoyed the patronage of the royal courts of Tsarist Russia, Prussia and France. This would have very soon put an end to any alternate political views they may have had. Even nearly a hundred years later the lack of change in the average scientist’s political affiliations can be seen from Darwin’s refusal to allow Karl Marx to dedicate Das Kapital to him. There is in fact only one respect in which scientists have consistently challenged the authority of the powers-that-be, and that is their rejection of the standard teachings of both the Roman Catholic Church as well as other Churches and religious authorities around Europe. Even here it is obvious that no direct attack was made on the Church by any leading philosopher. Rather, the gradual accumulation of evidence slowly toppled religious dogmas, as the worldview of leading thinkers came into conflict with that of the Church. Even Newton, the epitome of the Age of Reason and supposedly the ultimate rationalist, was known to introduce divine intervention into his arguments to explain mysteries such as that of comets. It was not until Darwin’s Origin of the Species that scientists were able to present a complete and coherent explanation of the world around them without mention of God in their theories. The conflict of science with organised religion continues to the present day. A recent Scientific American poll shows that in the United States, one of the most God-fearing nations in the world, the majority of scientists are atheists. Almost all leading biologists in America, and many other scientists besides, have come together to fight the Creationist agenda of the ultra-religious right who have been attempting to remove the theory of evolution from school curricula. Science and scientific methods of thought continue to challenge the authority of religion in other orthodox (particularly Islamic) societies. Yet this is as far as Science will go. Scientists in general are not known to espouse any particularly progressive views on society itself - rather scientists today, much like they were a few hundred years ago, are often reactionary and closed-minded. Much of this probably has to do with the fact that scientific research requires vast amounts of money and so scientists and universities are to a large extent dependent on government funding. And governments (in particular governments such as the current Bush administration and the NDA government in India) are more willing to spend money on research that furthers their own ideology. In the US for example, massive government funding is provided to anthropologists who assert on the basis of evolutionary theory that differences in intelligence levels between different races are an unalterable fact. Although all such studies have been shown to suffer from major technical flaws, they are still used to argue that state-run affirmative action programs are a waste of time. Grants and top jobs are withheld from those scientists who are believed to have alternate political views - the classic case in point being the government’s refusal to allow Robert Oppenheimer to continue his work on the nuclear bomb. I find it difficult to see how a scientist could maintain a particular public image of himself in order to avoid harassment, while consistently holding on to contrary private beliefs for any length of time. Of course, there have been notable exceptions to this conservative trend. Such scientists as Albert Einstein, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins among others have held leftist or progressive  viewpoints, and have had no problem in letting the world know about it. Gould in particular used his popularity as a science writer to debunk many racist myths and to highlight the shortcomings in social programs that worked on essentially racist principles. Yet it is clear that these are but exceptions to the general trend. The scientific community, drawn as it (still) largely is from the relatively more privileged segments of society, certainly isn’t liberal and it never has been. On the other hand, it is also no more conservative or reactionary than any other group of people with a similar social background subjected to similar pressures of conformism. So that brings us back to the original problem with which we began this article. Why are so many scientists - whose right-wing views are not after all based on any special expertise in the fields of sociology, polity or history - so ready to speak their minds on these issues? While accepting that this irritating phenomenon does exist, I would argue that it is indicative not so much of a problem with scientists as with society at large. After all, the same public that would dismiss a historian speaking on the topic of black holes as a man who had stepped beyond the boundaries of his knowledge is quite eager to listen to the pronouncements of a physicist on democracy. I believe that this extra respect for scientists is the result of a combination of poor science education and the massively increased visibility of the benefits of science (and particularly of advanced technology) in everyday life. In a world where, according to another recent Scientific American poll, the majority of Americans are unaware of how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun, the people who can talk about the curvature of space-time are viewed with a certain reverence. The successful scientist enjoys a status similar to that of a witch doctor in tribal societies. He is believed to have the answer to all the mysteries of the world. If a man can come up with something as esoteric as K-theory, thinks the average man, maybe he can tell me something about politics as well. It is this aura of omniscience that prompts scientists today to make the most outrageous statements on social issues in a most authoritative and scholarly manner. While they do deserve to be censured, the larger issue of scientific ignorance of the public must also be addressed. It is perhaps possible to envisage a world in the not-too-distant future in which better education of the masses might nullify the aura of superiority of the scientist, but it is perhaps being too optimistic to look forward to the day when scientists themselves might shake off conservative shackles and embrace more progressive values. 

N. Seshadri
II Physics