Science and Government: Most effective when competing, Not Allied

What interested me most about the reading on the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union was the effect that government can have on science. It is fascinating how scientists in Russia welcomed the February Revolution and the provisional government. They believed that the provisional government, not backward like the regime of the Tsar, could be a place where science could flourish. They envisioned the provisional government as a place where scientific thought and reason could triumph in a scientific utopia. As opposed to the ignorance surrounding the regime of the tsar, science could lead the provisional government to modernize the country and drastically change its economy for the better. In this Russia, science would be brought to the masses and Russia would rival the scientific reputation of any country in the west. While their vision may have ultimately failed because of the replacement of the provisional government by the communists, it may have also failed because they did not see the flawed ideology of a government and scientific community as one.

A great example of the failures that arise when government dominates science was in Soviet Russia. On the whole, communist rule in Russia devastated the scientific community. In the first years after the revolution scientists died because of the harsh economic conditions in Russia. Yet, even as the Soviets took better hold of the country and the scientific community it is unclear if this benefited science and scientists. Funding for scientists was centralized so that the government provided all funding. In order to meet the goals of “socialist reconstruction” scientists were forced to use their time to develop technology that could be applied to helping Russia rise as a world power instead of more broad research that better served the ideals of science. Scientists were no longer taking chances and tinkering with ideas but now they were confined to strict parameters to benefit the state in the short term. Additionally, at times funding was given to only those who were most prominent in the scientific community or those who were committed socialists. By the time Stalin was implementing his five year plan, detailed plans were required for scientists years in advance and a great deal of scientific ingenuity was lost. Ultimately physicists in Russia could not match the results of those in the west because they did not engage in research and thinking that looked towards the long term.

The failure of Soviet Science to reach its potential is why I question the idealistic vision of government that many scientists hoped for in the provisional government. Whether it would have been a democratic scientific utopia, or the communist society that developed in Russia, the mistake is the same. The mixture of science and government on a grand scale does not serve the best interests of science. If scientists are the ones making decisions in government than their research will eventually become politicized. While at first government might serve science with funding and freedom, it seems inevitable that government will end up dominating science. Government did dominate science in the Soviet Union and the cost was great. Government programs usually demand results for political purposes and timelines. Many of the great scientific discoveries have come because of innovation and paths taken by researchers that do not lead in a straight line. The scientific community benefits from different groups trying to reach conclusions in different ways. Further, it is also possible that the technology and knowledge that is created by science may but heads with the interests of the political regime in power and therefore that research might be destroyed. Government should play a role in encouraging science through funding but it should not restrict it unless it is absolutely necessary. One of the virtues of strong republics is competing institutions that clash against each other for power and influence, so that no one group can take complete control. The scientific community is one of these vital institutions and it must remain largely independent. Science should have a great say in society so that it can check government and ignorance, just as government will at times have to check science when it loses of track of its morality.

World War One and the International Scientific Community

One of the most interesting things said so far in this class was when Professor Maleki stated that Physics was not necessarily the absolute truth but rather an alternative viewpoint. This surprised me to hear a Physics professor make this argument. Being a political science and history major I had always admired science for its pursuit of a kind of truth than can be tested and proven. I am not exactly sure if I fully understand what professor Maleki meant and I am looking forward to learning what role the viewpoint of Physics plays in our world. If modern Physics is centered around being able to come to conclusions through quantitative analysis, then why can't Physics provide us with the absolute truth?

The history reading given for last class shows that while Physics often comes down to quantitative analysis the interaction between nations and scientists in war is much more abstract. I found it interesting how Hale chose to use Science to further divide the world during World War One rather than seeing it as the rare thing that could bring it together. Often it seems that portrayals of scientists suggest that scientists are moral relativists who have little concern for humanity, religion, or politics and are only focused on advancing their research. The example of scientists acting during world one suggests the opposite. The ideals of a free-international scientific community are thrown to the side as many involved clung to their national identity and sense of morality about the war rather than their scientific interests. At the very beginning of the war Hale sees the importance of international science and by the end of the war he is consumed with punishing German scientists for their involvement in the war. The emotion of war ultimately trumps the rationality of science.

Einstein on the other hand seems to have both a strong sense of morality and an investment in the idea of a strong international scientific community. His values as a pacifist and his belief in science make him strongly anti-war.It seems to me that Einstein sees violence as un-scientific, the result of irrationality and emotions as opposed to logic and reason. Einstein believes there is a better way for humanity to resolve conflict besides war, and maybe that way can be found through science. It is not only in the best interests of scientists, and science itself, for there to be a strong scientific community, but it is also in the interests of peace to bring people from all corners of the globe to similar conclusions about the physical world we live in. Perhaps the more we have in common in the pursuit of scientific truth the less we will have to argue about in war.

Of course it is a great tragedy that Einstein's pacifism was ultimately confronted by perhaps history's greatest case for war the holocaust, which started in his home country and agaisnt his own religion.