In 2013, Washington DC published a final version of Next Generation Science Standards, a new benchmark for students in elementary, middle, and high school to adhere to when studying sciences. Here are two of the many standards:
- Scientific inquiry is characterized by a common set of values that include: logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, replicability of results, and honest and ethical reporting of findings.
- Scientists’ backgrounds, theoretical commitments, and fields of endeavor influence the nature of their findings.
The new science standards emphasize the required objectivity in science, but acknowledge that scientists are people with identities. These identities may influence research [1]. Though it is clear that quality scientific results come from procedural and objective standards, it’s impossible to separate an individual’s background from their research. However, the distinction is clear enough so that while identity may influence logic, reasoning, and exigence, scientific inquiry and results remain as objective as possible.
For example, in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s harsh deserts leave little arable land for sustenance farming. In South America, Belize’s coastline communities face poverty as the fishing industry declines due to overfishing. To compensate for this, there have been recent developments in the seaweed farming community: growing seaweeds in the ocean as a form of mariculture may provide another form of industry to these less fortunate communities [2, 3].
Researchers and scientists wanting to assist these countries may push for the benefits of seaweed cultivation, but ultimately are responsible for ensuring that such agriculture does not negatively impact the marine community close to the farming area (which, to my understanding, it actually does the opposite) [4].
Essentially, while the goal of science is to remain as objective as possible for replicable results, separation of research and personal influence is almost impossible, making some overlap inevitable. Even so, most science is objective enough so that personal influence does not completely change the results of an experiment.
This idea of influence, but not total control, of separate areas on each other resurfaces in many fields outside of science as well.
In the government, Federalist Paper 47 is James Madison’s examination of the separation of powers in the US government. Though objections in that day argued that the three branches should be completely “separate and distinct,” Madison employs logic and references the British Constitution and Montesquieu to rebut this complete separation [5].
One of Madison’s main points against total separation is efficacy. The primary goal of all governments is to be functional: for the US, as long as the branches can operate mostly independently, then they are serving their purpose. As long as the powers are separated enough, to the point that one is not in “danger of being crushed by… [the] other," then the branches are functional [5].
In regards to tyranny, the objection to the United States’ government is the fact that power -- whether it be in legislative, executive, or judiciary branches -- is still concentrated in the hands of the few, that it doesn’t matter if these representatives are still elected, power still remains concentrated. To this, Madison references Montesquieu in saying that the purpose of the branches’ distinction is to avoid complete and total power of “one department… exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department” [5]. Again, this correlates with the notion of overlap, but not total separation: each governmental branch functions in and of itself; no power completely belongs to two or more branches so that a tyrannical law can be written, executed, and enforced by the same power. In the same way that human personality and identity may affect or instigate scientific research, the three government branches may influence one another but are still distinct enough so that they can each function and serve their purpose. They are still distinct enough so that a questionable law written by one branch may not be passed by another branch influenced by the first to execute it.
Finally, for all that the three branches are separate, they are all still part of the same government. All three branches belong to the same people and the same nation. If they were completely, totally separate, then there would be no common ground upon which to build a foundation to work upon; nothing would be accomplished. Yes, checks and balances and bureaucracy exist to purposely slow all work, but the main purpose of the government is to function for the people -- a common goal for all three branches. Having separate entities in the government defeats this purpose, because the “whole fabric of the constitution [requires] one indissoluble bond of unity and amity” [5]. The branches are connected and linked in some inevitable way, inseparable because they are all part of the same government. The human condition and personal thought are connected and linked to scientific research in the same inevitable way, because both are the product of people.
Another example: though the separation of church and state is an idea well-known, there are still many instances of church and state overlapping one another in America today. Marriage blurs many of the lines between church and state; in the courtroom, citizens swear over the bible; the pledge of allegiance every morning mentions “God” and the dollar signed is inscribed with “in God we trust.”
Though such overlap exists, for the most part, the two bodies are distinct enough. The church does not write policy and the state does not run religion. Citizens still follow their own religions, regardless of who is in office.
Of course, all of these examples are convoluted in some way -- some believe that is is possible to completely separate science from subjectivity, through hard facts or numerical measurements; some believe that the presence of religion in state (in courtrooms, the pledge of allegiance, the dollar bill) is already too much.
But in science, in government, and in the universe, all things are somehow connected, aren’t they? The question is not whether two spheres overlap; the question is how much they should overlap, and where the line between distinction and separation, between influence and control, should be drawn.
References
- Next Generation Science Standards by Topic. (n.d.). Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/overview-topics
- Andrews, S. (2016, August 09). Belize Seaweed: The Next Big Thing for Fisheries. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://thefishsite.com/articles/belize-seaweed-the-next-big-thing-for-fisheries
- Al‐Hafedh, Y. S., Alam, A., Buschmann, A. H., & Fitzsimmons, K. M. (2012, March 07). Experiments on an integrated aquaculture system (seaweeds and marine fish) on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia: efficiency comparison of two local seaweed species for nutrient biofiltration and production. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01057.x/abstract
- Duarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2017, April 12). Can Seaweed Farming Play a Role in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation? Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100/full
- Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman Law Library. (n.d.). The Federalist Papers: No. 47. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment