Science and our humanity

A while back I wrote a piece on the relationship between Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and Humanities and Social Sciences (HAAS). One of the focal points of my discussion was on the relationship between science and values. This piece of writing appeared in the New Sunday Times (NST), Learning Curve Section, August 14, 2011, page 4.

Science and our humanity

'THE New Straits Times (NST) reports that the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation plans to declare 2012 as the year of science.[1] According to the same report, Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Maximus Johnity Ongkili also said: "We plan to hold nationwide programmes to promote wider appreciation of Science and Technology among Malaysians".[2]

The acceptance and appreciation of the subjects among the wider public is indeed an important precondition for the successful development of a Science and Technology base for Malaysia's national development. However, for Science and Technology to be appreciated, there needs to be a corollary understanding of the role of Science in addressing the critical problems of sustainability and development that Malaysia has.

Not only do scientific advances need to be explained cogently to the wider public but the importance of Science to the achievement of the needs and aspirations of Malaysian society needs to be engaged. One way of engaging the public is by arguing for the importance of Science and Technology in relation to the values that Malaysians hold. After all, the reason the public will, for the most part, engage with Science and Technology is if they can see its relevance to solving contemporary problems and that what scientists seek to achieve is morally justifiable and arguable.

Critics have long recognised that a discourse of Science that lacks any sense of the values and moral priorities of a society means that scientific discovery lacks a sustainable moral anchor in the society. Why is it important to recognise the ethical aspect of Science? If Science lacks an ethical anchor, then Science as the engine of growth and development will not be able to justify itself in terms of the aspirations and values of the society it seeks to serve. Scientific discovery cannot disconnect itself from the moral beliefs of a community. It cannot be divorced from the moral aims that generate it.

Science itself can be used for good or evil. This, of course, is the point. With our focus on Science, we must ask Science for what? To alleviate what problem; to engage what conundrum; the choices made here are far from value neutral. One way of providing a values basis for scientific research is to recognise the useful role that the Humanities can play in opening up discussion about the ethics, aims and implications of scientific scrutiny. Interestingly, this observation and argument correlates with research which now also recognises the critical importance within universities of engaging Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as well as Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) research. The importance of Humanities research to informing culture, inspiring depth in innovation and giving substance to innovation should not be underestimated. Its importance to STEM is also being recognised.

STEM is an important and critical driver for creative industries. However, the Arts and Humanities also have a particularly strong relationship with the said industries. In fact, evidence suggests that the Arts and Humanities are critical stimulants to creative industries and that the importance of Social Science and Humanities research to the ethical defence and acceptance of scientific innovation and its applications is of central importance to their societal uptake.

In essence, the Arts and Humanities provide an important conduit for the acceptance of scientific discoveries as well as a platform for the critique of Science. Contemporary research suggests that the Arts and Humanities can provide a language and narrative that help to translate scientific discovery to a broader public. Here is the rub -- the necessity of the Arts and Humanities being an effective conduit to translate scientific discovery to the public also entails the importance of Science being able to articulate itself in moral terms that are coherent with the beliefs and values of the host society.

The critical issue in regard to the relationship between STEM and HASS is that a deterministic and narrow notion of the role of STEM to universities and the relationship to innovation is no longer tenable. The systemic nature of innovation and the cultural significance of scientific discovery entail an appreciation of the values dimension to scientific knowledge and its application; therefore, the importance of both STEM and HASS and the issue of values and culture to learning and higher education.

The implications of breaking down the silos between the Sciences and the Humanities for habits of lifelong learning and social development are momentous. Given all of the above, what then is the critical relevance of ensuring that scientific discovery is both able to articulate itself in terms that are understandable to the broader public and that scientist’s take seriously the moral dimension to their work? Firstly, for scientific discovery to be understood by the public and for its effort to be understood and supported by it, requires Science to be able to articulate itself in a way that is coherent and understandable. Secondly, this requirement also imposes upon Science the condition that it can justify its discoveries and advances with reference to the moral aspirations of society. Such engagement enhances public appreciation and understanding of Science and its benefits and aims.

The foundation of an ethically-based scientific agenda in research universities must be laid on an acceptance that Science must not become beholden merely to the making of profit or simple personal gain. Rather, scientific endeavour is fundamentally also of moral significance in our societies. Recognising this basic point will generate much debate. It does not preclude disagreement or discussion. In fact, opening up the values dimension to Science may generate more robust debate and discussion.

While such a debate may force some to engage in the act of public justification and explanation, this process itself can also help develop a better understanding of Science in the community. Ignoring community concern about the direction of Science in our lives will only add to more anxiety and misunderstanding. Science, as with all human practices, exists in a moral community; its aims and successes must be able to be articulated and defended within such a community. Such are the requirements of living in a democracy. Appreciating Science entails discussing and debating it.'

References

[1] NST, "Malaysia Set to Declare 2012 Year of Science," New Straits Times(2010), https://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/Malaysiasettodeclare2012_YearofScience_/Article/#ixzz1UR3TH6uZ).

[2] Ibid.