Science: Commercialisation or Dmocratisation

The philosophy of science, once pillared on values in all cultures, later showcased as value-free in the west, is now retreating towards a value-based system. Thus evolution circled from a past laden with values, transitioned through various stages of value–neutrality and ultimately retired to a value-based point of view. In yore scientific study and research were conducted to invent new, or discover hidden facts to benefit humankind; with no profit orientation or any global threat through the medium and means of mass and deep destruction.

Currently science is used as commodity and treated as something that can be sold. Profit laced standpoint often decides the direction of scientific research. Thus influence of commercial interest is rapidly impacting and transforming the internal structure of science itself. Initially science was conducted individually. Subsequently this pursuit witnessed funding by government and type of research problem was affected by government priorities. The source of funding became one of the powerful ways through which fixed goals started to influence science.

Corporate sector funding has its own motive of commercial interests to grind whether concerned with solar energy, nuclear power, space research or any other issue. Likewise other sectors follow their agenda of interests. This scenario has led to a situation where scientific and technological developments are tremendously goaded by commercial interests with overwhelming implications for accountability, ethics, transparency and clash of interests; making science servile to business class most of them cast threat to total life on the earth.

As per one estimate on the production of lethal weapons there are as many and so much stocks of weapons as are sufficient to annihilate seven times of this world. It appears world has moved from normal science to post normal. In the era of normal science our thinking revolved round the subjects of biology, botany, chemistry, mathematics, physics etc., where value–giving and uncertainty factors were not given much credit. But in post normal science these have become indispensable elements because values are no longer universal and facts no longer certain due to loss of their status; expectations are high and decisions are wanted expeditiously. Man-made risks have traversed beyond his easy control. The safety of the blue planet is confronted with too serious an existential threat to recoup immediately.

Power centers have changed and increased also. The first World War showed prominently that unbridled science could be problematic and an agent of catastrophe as well. “Fritz Haber (1868-1934), a German scientist developed a method to synthesize ammonia gas for which he won Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1918. He is also known as the father of chemical warfare as he weaponised chlorine gas and other poisonous gases proposing their use against enemies in the First World War. These gases were not only employed against foreign enemies but also against fellow Europeans.

Haber’s work also indirectly contributed to the horrors of the holocaust representing a grotesque perversion of science. Subsequently Second World War ended with the use of atomic bomb elevating the destructive power of science to an almost supernatural level. ” As of now, the US air force has GBU-57, a 30,000 pound (15 Ton) bunker busting non-nuclear bomb capable of penetrating up to 200 feet (60 meters) of unspecified material or 18 meters of concrete before exploding, destroying targets deep below the earth. Intercontinental ballistic missiles which can target upto16,000 kilometers, invisible missiles and aircraft stealth technology are the other products of science where all safety shelters are rendered redundant. While giving awards for inventing or preparing life-saving drugs and medicines is understandable, bestowing Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry for forming life-taking devices or chemicals is mind-boggling.

Advancement in science and technology has remained a great achievement of humankind with universal appeal and application. Till late 20^th century it became evident that science was not free from bias and this realization led to attract the attention of social epistemology which holds science and technology accountable to society by posing questions like what type of knowledge should we seek, who should be the producers and beneficiaries, on behalf of whom and for what purpose is this knowledge required and what should be the methodology of its application? This inquisition indicates that societal fabrics play an important role in the process of knowledge generation and its usage.

Nowadays science cannot be left solely to the community of peers whose activities often remain beyond public examination, managers of science or those who control its products. Earlier it was a gentlemanly pursuit with limited concerns. Contemporary science both solves and creates problems. The solution lies in involving ponderable masses in multilayered scientific activities and employing multiculturalism which fosters a broader and enriched perspective on knowledge. There should be no commercialization but democratization of science and its products should inevitably pass through public scrutiny invariably before they are marketed. Islamic civilization offers valuable lessons on how growth of holistic knowledge can be successfully achieved today.

The author is a former Sr. Audit Officer and Consultant in the A.G’s Office Srinagar.