[Translate to English:]
by

Science needs activism

11/12/2024

“Science should be neutral”, it has been said multiple times at this university. But is that really true? Can we shed the responsibility for the consequences of our knowledge? If we let other people define the constraints of our problem and our solution, we are nothing more than a tool to people with a vision. Knowledge without ethics is dangerous knowledge.

Science does not have any values. It’s not neutral, it’s not political, it’s just a tool. A tool we use for organising and building knowledge. The material properties of glass don’t  care about the scientist believes, they just are. A scientist can hold any number of beliefs, the scientific process will always lead to an approximation of general truth if properly applied. Two scientists with radically different beliefs can do the same experiment on the efficiency of a chemical reaction, and they will find the same result, or discover that they were not doing the same experiment. 

If our beliefs don’t matter to the process of science should we have them?  Maybe they could be a conflict of interest. This is already a big risk when it comes to collaboration with companies. If you have a business, and you use a certain technique, you want that technique to be better than some other technique. This is a perverse incentive to influence the conclusions. We all know that ties to business require scrutiny, and we are aware of the effect of money on research conclusions. No research funded by a dairy company has ever found the same link between alzheimers and dairy consumption as studies funded by government subsidies. This could be true for beliefs. However, I don’t think this is plausible to believe. 

Imagine yourself as a communist. You believe that we would all be happier in a stateless, moneyless, classless society, free of borders and government oversight. I would not be able to translate this belief into an influence on the efficiency of solid state converters for home solarpanelsystems. It could be that having false information about the efficiency of converters will lead to a communist utopia, but it’s way easier to imagine how a converter company would benefit if the architechture of their solid state converters are more efficient than the general architechture other companies use. That’s why I don’t see beliefs or activism as a danger to the scientific process while we are surrounded by perverse incentives from the companies around us. 

There is a way more important reason to be honest about what we believe. Knowledge without ethics is dangerous knowledge. A man invented a way to turn nitrogen gas and hydrogen into ammonia for fertilizer. He is known under many names, one of which is ”the man who turned air into bread”. He is also known as “the father of chemical warfare” for his invention of mustard gas, which he oversaw the deployment of during the second battle of Ypres and caused 67.000 casulties. This same man said: “You are a scientist for the world during peace-time, but a scientist for your fatherland in war.” 

I will never be able to truly understand what guided his actions. But i hope will not make the same mistakes. There are so many scientists who have done awfull things with their knowledge. The atom bomb, which wiped 2 cities full of civilians off the map in an act of unprecedented cruelty and collective punishment. Drones have been developed to blow up villages while the operator is an entire ocean away. You could rationalize all these actions. All these devices are solutions to problems defined by men with beliefs. 

If we let other people define the constraints of our problem and our solution, we are nothing more than a tool to people with a vision. We should develop our own beliefs and vision to be able to judge if we want to contribute to their beliefs and vision. We are sceptical of solutions without proof, that’s how we are tought to think as scientists. Never believe a statement without proof. We should also be sceptical of ideas without argumentation. Know the reasons you have for believing something, and make sure those reasons are an accurate representation of reality. 

Question, discuss and discover your own ideas. Your time at university is the time to develop your world view. We have so many different backgrounds and ideas. Why settle for mainstream?  Learn about extreme ideas. Join a protest, see how it feels. When you have a job, you are far less likely to risk your image and can’t waste time debating if what you are doing is right. Enjoy the fluididity of your mind while it lasts. Before you know it, you are 50 and have only ever worked on other peoples passions. 

You can disagree with me, some other collumnists do. But be sure to keep talking about it! Without discussion, you will never learn about the ideas of others. What I would like yout to ask yourself is this: As soon as you publish what you learn, will your discovery be used for the betterment of mankind, or will it be used to further the interests of the few? Are you responsible for those applications and it’s consequences? And would you change what you are doing if you take the possible consequences into account? 

Lucas van Bentum is a master student in Electrical Energy Systems at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering.

Share this article