Available online
Description
The programme consists of filmed interviews with a number of academic scientists talking about their attitude to the involvement of science in the wider social political context. There are those wh...o feel that, since the products of science are used for industrial and political purposes, scientists have a responsibility to be aware of these and if necessary to actively promote or oppose these uses. Other people argue that science is objective and that if scientists adopt a political role they will suffer as scientists. Others argue that it is applied science (i.e. technology and medicine) which has these problems and that pure science is the pursuit of objective truth and is above such considerations. The programme is prefaced and summed up by the Dean of Science, Professor Michael Pentz. Other people argue that science is objective and that if scientists adopt a political role they will suffer as scientists. Others argue that it is applied science (i.e. technology and medicine) which has these problems and that pure science is the pursuit of objective truth and is above such considerations. The programme is prefaced and summed up by the Dean of Science, Professor Michael Pentz.
The programme consists of filmed interviews with a number of academic scientists talking about their attitude to the involvement of science in the wider social political context. There are those wh...o feel that, since the products of science are used for industrial and political purposes, scientists have a responsibility to be aware of these and if necessary to actively promote or oppose these uses. Other people argue that science is objective and that if scientists adopt a political role they will suffer as scientists. Others argue that it is applied science (i.e. technology and medicine) which has these problems and that pure science is the pursuit of objective truth and is above such considerations. The programme is prefaced and summed up by the Dean of Science, Professor Michael Pentz. Other people argue that science is objective and that if scientists adopt a political role they will suffer as scientists. Others argue that it is applied science (i.e. technology and medicine) which has these problems and that pure science is the pursuit of objective truth and is above such considerations. The programme is prefaced and summed up by the Dean of Science, Professor Michael Pentz.
| Module code and title: | S100, Science foundation course |
|---|---|
| Item code: | S100; 34; 1973 |
| Recording date: | 1973 |
| First transmission date: | 1973-10-06 |
| Published: | 1973 |
| Rights Statement: | Rights owned or controlled by The Open University |
| Restrictions on use: | This material can be used in accordance with The Open University conditions of use. A link to the conditions can be found at the bottom of all OUDA web pages. |
| Duration: | 00:24:30 |
| + Show more... | |
| Producer: | John Groom |
| Contributors: | Michael Pentz; Richard Goldberg; Jonathan Beckwith; A. W. Galston; Sheldon Penman; George Porter; Ethan Signer; Steve Weinberg |
| Publisher: | Open University |
| Keyword(s): | Decision making in science |
| Subject terms: | Science--Social aspects; Science and state; Science--Political aspects |
| Footage description: | Mike Pentz introduces the programme. He lists several examples of the use of science to achieve socially undesirable goals. Jonathan Beckwith, Harvard Medical School, gives his views on the use of science as a tool for oppression. Film shots of defoliation in Vietnam with commentary by Pentz. Arthur Galston in his laboratory at Yale explains how his work on increasing the yield of soya beans was used to develop defoliants for use in Vietnam. He explains how he felt about this and what action he took. Beckwith continues his discussion on the misuse of science. Sheldon Penman, MIT, argues against those who, like Beckwith, call for a politicticised science. He lists some historical examples of science politicised and misused because it tried to serve the ideals of the society at the time. Sir George Porter distinguishes between pure and applied science, arguing that pure science is apolitical by its nature. He argues that the pure scientist must educate public opinion however. Jonathan Beckwith discusses the problems involved in informing public opinion and how the mass media makes this difficult by sensationalising rather than informing. Still shots of several newspaper headlines. Ethan Signer and some of his colleagues at MIT discuss the mystique which surrounds the scientist and how this makes it difficult for him to inform a critical public. Steven Weinberg, MIT, argues that science has nothing to do with the immediate needs of society or the political process and that it cannot therefore be made part of the public decision making process. Ethan Signer and his colleagues argue that because science spends public money it must produce things which are seen by people in general as being desirable. Sheldon Penman argues that education of the common man is not the primary purpose of science. Beckwith, however, argues that decision making in science must be made democratically and that scientists must, therefore, educate the common man. Penman continues his argument that science must be free of politics to be effective. Beckwith sums up his arguments in favour of a politicised science accountable to the people. Mike Pentz sums up. Credits. |
| Production number: | JOUZ391B |
| Videofinder number: | 2864 |
| Available to public: | no |
