Annals of shared responsibility
Cursing is healthy and raindrops self-fragment – news items about new studies’ results appear in the media on a daily basis making us wonder who on earth funds these researchers. But even when it comes to issues that seem much more significant, the academia’s contribution to society should not be taken for granted.
Scholars make the intellectual elite of modern societies, but through the years the ivory tower became isolated from its surroundings. Science indeed provides the indispensable knowledge fundaments for the development of society. But, at times, some scientists – but also some of their critiques – tend to forget that science and society are basically inter-dependent.
While there’s no substitute for thorough inquiry of each and every aspect of our lives, academics are also bound to acknowledge their work isn’t done once their article joins the corpus of human knowledge when published in one journal or another. Their important achievements, gained with much effort and? through long time, would remain insignificant if they’re not properly communicated to the world outside the lab, and interpreted into significant practice.
So how can a quantum physicist, a Kantian philosopher or a molecular biologist translate their profession into daily life actions? Well, as scientists usually say – there are no easy answers. But it is definitely their duty to address the question of their role in society and find the appropriate way to engage their knowledge and tools for the current pressing issues in the communities within they live.
In fact, history provides the bluntest examples for the need for such “academic activism”. In too many cases science was distorted and misused for the benefit of those in power. At times it was – and still is – plain pseudo-science recruited to justify the most wrong deeds. All of these effectively cause the delegitimization of science and scientists, but also highlight the responsibility that scientists bear for taking an active role in their earthly societies, here and now.
Two examples from recent Israeli environmental battles showcased the power of the academia. In both cases, the issue at stake was plans to establish new villages which consequently required extensive environmental damage and harm to the unique local biodiversity. In both of them, as part of larger campaigns, a few dozens of academics joined a petition calling for the abolishment of the plans and for the protection of these lands.
In the first case, from the Gilboa ridge in northern Israel, the planning administration indeed eventually decided to call off the plan. In the other, from the east Lachish region, a formal objection filed by 60 scientists was rejected, but not before bringing a counter-petition signed by a similar number of other scientists in favor of the new village.
The relative contribution of each of these acts in the ultimate decision can be argued. However, in both cases the involvement of the scientists’ coalition proved to boost the public debate on these highly important issues. Not only that it provided genuine grounds for the conservation of nature, but mostly clarified the true necessity for a broad, topical public debate.
The Ig Nobel Prizes, annually awarded to the most esoteric research works, sarcastically hint some scientists might have lost direction in the quest for understanding the world around us. In democratic societies, where citizen participation is a key component, academics are not dismissed from this obligation. In some cases they do realize their involvement is in their own interest.
Science might be beholding reality, but those equipped with the best analytic instruments, those who are paid for thinking, cannot be bystanders in their own societies. And there’s no need for an empirical proof for that.
