Early Versions of Political Science and the Politics of Science

Though seemingly independent, science and politics have had a very much interdependent relationship since their inception. Scientific research has always happened within a political framework; indeed at many times in history, study has been stifled as a result of political restriction. In the modern day, governmental organizations give tremendous amounts of money toward research programs, but some research, such as stem cells, are politically divisive; it seems the state encourages science, but only so far as the social will allow. Either way, while science operates within a sociopolitical paradigm, its advances are reflected in political development.

Prior to the advent of the refrigerator most produce and other agricultural products were served in their local environment. Cities developed in a manner such that the rural areas could feed the urban centers, and these communities were unable to grow beyond their ability to support themselves. Socially, people desired a more localized government as their more interpersonal relationships seemed to better fit that manner of representation. Ideas, along with many goods, easily spread long distances, but agriculture remained relatively local. After refrigeration had developed, the world changed. In the modern day agri-business is a multibillion dollar international industry that is able to take goods anywhere in the world. Needless to say this seemingly minor advance, one of thousands, has dramatically effected the political development of the modern world. Other more straight-forward concepts illustrating this include: vaccines, nuclear weapons, the internet and communications technology, and even polling.

As much as science is dependent on its political environment, the world is shaped by scientific advance. However, this relationship gives little justice to the idea of what is right and what is wrong; it is often assumed that anything with a statistic to back it up is true. Unfortunately, in practice, for almost every issue known to man in every realm of study there are those who believe in one manner and those who disagree. This is not to say that a physicist and a bartender will disagree on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, but instead that two physicists may very well do so.

Because so many political actions depend on research, such as economic policy for example, a large question develops: what is true? Furthermore, how is perceived truth applied to action? Consider the case of developmental economics. Many economists believe that development requires specialization, which in turn requires free trade. This has encouraged many first world countries to recommend poorer allies remove tariffs; in some cases, such as Sri Lanka, this has met with relative success; in others, such as Jamaica, it has been an outrageous failure. This is generally not because of some devious nature to economists, instead, some research has been favored over others; it is also the case that not all is known about developmental economics, and therefore action is partially blinded.

Many politicians hold immense power in terms of their ability to influence the world; with just over 17.5% of the vote in the IMF and World Bank for example, the United States’ idea of economic development can quickly become the world technique. Still, American politicians must decide what research is right and what is wrong; it is needless to say that this is far from a scientific and objective approach to action.

The goals of the politician are different than those of the researcher. While the researcher may strive for knowledge, funding or fame, the politician’s goal is reelection, legacy and lastly, amelioration. So then the politician’s goals may have little to do with what is true. Instead, the politician may very well seek what is he believes to be true and make it so. This is because in practice, truth is a very relative term.

Many would like to believe that "truth" is always true; it is so much easier in many ways to quietly assume that what we know is based on reality and our actions are based on what we know, but this is not always the case. Truth is not what fact has proven; it is what minds have accepted. In a practical sense, politics is a field of action; political theories of men such as Locke, Madison and Marx have influenced our world in a very real sense. In each case these men's theories were only ideas, but they were ideas that millions believed to be true and have now actually changed the world and led to both war and peace.

Research in a lab may likewise be 100% accurate, but if it is so outrageously different than what was known that no other thought is given to testing the findings, that research is false. It may be "right" in some actual sense, but for all practical purposes, the findings were simply "wrong" and will continue to be until they are legitimized.

So then knowledge matters based on who believes it; because of the power of political positions, the belief in knowledge can have an immeasurable affect on our world. Consider that economic study has led to the belief that free trade is almost always preferable for encouraging development. In practice this has led to some nations developing faster than any could have imagined, while others have been devastated. While science will always produce answers, some right, some wrong, what is in actuality far more important is who believes what is knowledge is "right" and what power they have to utilize their ideas.
-Mike Ryckman