Reasearch is Neutral, Application is political

That was the topic I picked to work in a group and present at the end of the week in Germany. Can you guess why i picked it? Might it be because it ha the word politics in it? and because the sci comm one was already full..
Basically we were given taht question and the instructions to come up with questions to ask the scientists during the week.. our questions:
Define Neutral.
Define Politics.
Why shoudl we put money into science when there is so much suffering in the world?
and... What are the limits of corporate responsibility?
I was incredibly lucky.. my group was the most awesome mix of people.. really there were only 3 of us that contributed alot (how much have i improved?! there are people out there who think im extroverted, and confidant in my opinions, this is jsut a comparison to eyar 7 when i blushed if people spoke to me.. its gone from taht to standing up infront of a group of people and saying taht consumerism ahs replaced religion..hahaha).. Myself, a norwegain-american with fantastic english adn a swede whos written english was totally awesome.. and another girl who found our cynicism a little overwhelaming at times.. but i think she managed to keep up mostly (we had a tendancy to speak fast.. the joys of using good english are just so hard to explain, but the people who actaully challenge your linguistic abilities are worth their wieight in gold)..
so.. we devised some rather mean questions.. im sure those who have given presentations amoungst my readers will be glad to know we didnt actaully ask anyone these questions.. we all wimped out.. we spent alot of the first workshop trying to work out waht the question meant.. mainly this meant defining Neutral (as having a pH of 7.. good answer but it wsnt really going to work, and that smels a bit of nerdy scarcasm) which we never actually did sucessfully.. then we defined politics.. problem was we had an economist in the group who defined everything taht was involved with money as being political (because the economy is a construct of politics).. moving on from that anything taht involves people has politics.. ergo its not possible for anything to be A-political (except we decided people who wanted to help out sick grandmothers). The main problem was that for every rule there was an exception.. and for every exception there was someone (such as myself) who would argue the opposite jsut for the hell of it.. funnily enoguht we didnt get very far.. although we did have alot of fun.. everything got more complicated when a hippy, who had given us a lecture on how it was bad that the camp was sponsored by a weapons manufacturer, decided to join us.. it was his claim that science adn politics are pretty much one and the same (he didnt manage to convince me.. as far as im concerned if you come up with a tehory and keep it in your head its still science and is unpolitical.. he claims taht its not science if its not shared..) and taht neutrality is when something benefits no one (and therefore is a useless pile of gloop)..
its at this point i can see soo manypeople sitting at their computer screens and going 'oh, my god..why?... why waste your time with that?' why?.. well partly cause it was fun.. partly cause it made us think... and partly because its nessicary..
if we are scientists we need tobe aware of waht effect we have on our surroundings (and the effect our surroundings have on us) -not only are we a product of society, but we also affect society-. if you write a book you need to decide who should read that book.. if its about bioweapons.. should everyone share the knowledge? or should it only be for the countries you like?
when we are taught about sicence in school it is as if science is static.. we learn some laws (particularly in physics) we learn that radioactive material decays etc. but the system forgets to remind us that science isnt (one could say) neutral, there are the facts but how those facts are implimented can mean life or death. Sub atomic research led to hiroshima.. how often is physics blamed for the death of millions? how often do we remind engineers that when they develop more efficient aircraft those craft may be used in war? throughtout our education scientists are not reminded that they are responsible for that which they study.. and thats why its important.. its importnat that people think about where thier funding comes from and where their research goes to. being responsible means being accountable.. and thinking ahead..
But yes.. we did actually end up writing a paper about application being political etc. it was quite good.. personally id say we used too many fancy words.. but it was fun either way..
so.. we discussed that its not possible for soemthig to be neutral.. adn that politics often gets in the way of research (either blocking it or putting money into the wrong things) we also suggested that corporations have more power than the government, especially when it comes to science ie. they ahve the money.. and this often leads to science being squewed.. either the results are made to do what they should (not waht they actually did) or the research is not alwyas applied in the way that will benefit most people, rather that it is applied in the way they will create most €€.. cynical, no?
we also said that people consume to be accepted.. naturally people dont want bigger flat screen TVs, (ther eis no evoloutionary benefit) BUT that is what society suggests is nessicary to be accepted.. ergo people purchase (this is where i suggested that religionhas left a hole in society and consumerism is rushing to fill that gap.. not surehow much of the audience got it.. but one german at masters level rather liked the idea.. ithink he saw i came up with it on the spot).. yeah.. i jsut think its a shame taht to be acceptd into society.. to hit the mean, you need to creat so much environmental damage..
hmm.. what else? oh, we had a talk from a guy at MERCK pharmaseuticals company etc. and he is part of the team that lowers merks impact on the envoronment, water recycling etc. and he siad soem interesting stuff (inadvertantly) he siad that he wanted to be able to face his childrent when he goes home at night.. and taht partially he does thte right thing by the environment because otherwise he would be jailed (i held back from asking if he didnt ahve a daughter and if there were no jails if he would do a better paying job that didnt help the environemnt).. sort of an interesting concetpt.. the incentives for the things we do..
he also alluded to family companies being more responsible than ones soley owned by shareholders (there ahve been cases of shareholders sueing the board of a company for spending too much on enviro stuff and not getting enough profit).. when this was picked up on by one of my companions he intelligently backed off..
we also came to the conculsion that because most corporations are run by shareholders.. and their consumers we rely on the public generally doing waht is right by the world as opposed to their hip pocket (ie. picking a product that is more expensive but more envio friendly).. at which point i said this was hardly a good system as it means poorer people are forced into decisions that may be against their willbecause they dont ahve €€ which is hardly thieir fault.. this was met with a rather pained expression.. which i appoligised for later..
but yes.. thats a taste of wht we talkd about.. lots of fun.. and i hope you enjoyed the read..
take care..