Science and the social good

With the economic reality of the recession, many universities have begun to question which of their departments are particularly worthy. While it is usually the humanities that take the hardest hit, there are other avenues of question that appeal to the common person.

“Why not theoretical physics?” someone might ask. “Human beings are far more affected by the literature they read than by the funny little names scientists keep inventing for invisible particles.”

Beyond the ignorance inherent in such a question, the idea remains: does science matter beyond its implications for public policy and the social good?

Today’s higher-ups rely on a weird mix of Marxism and utilitarian thought when they speak of funding. They seek sentimental answers as to whether or not an avenue of research will ease the suffering of humanity. They worry about upsetting the social psyche with new instances of radical truth. They insist more and more on a science that panders, rather than one that explores.

Are they right? Should science be inextricably stretched out on the table with the welfare system? Personally, I don’t regard that as a practically sound idea, for many reasons.

Chief among them is the question of whether or not science can even function within such deconstructive boundaries. It is as if we have lost the capacity to understand the links between inquiry and product.

Science does not spring from the ground as a finished cure for human ills; it is a process. It is a system and a set of principles, not a mass-production factory.

I am a rabid and uncompromising idealist. When I imagine the beginnings of science, I don’t see a first man miraculously realizing that his favorite root cures his neighbors’ ills. I see a first man, brave in the face of the wilderness, using his mind and his curiosity to create a discourse with the world outside of himself.

In fact, I can’t comprehend a single scenario in which the first example could have preceded the second. In order to allow for the advances that benefit human life, empirical discoveries must serve as the principal heralds.

Surely, it is easy today to look at seemingly disparate fields like pharmacology and theoretical physics and make claims of priority. Yet, it would be irrational to exhort the idea that pharmacology is the more crucial element to society without understanding the intricate intellectual history that lead to its inception.  

For many, the argument may be perfectly understandable, but the results too disappointing. They still remember the ills of the day-to-day and cannot help but cling to the idea of imminent release on the public dollar. However, I offer a solution besides the applicable and the medicinal. I offer a solution forgotten by many. I offer passion — passion that begins and ends in scientific sensuality.

Perhaps humanity would not suffer so much if it turned its eyes to the world at hand for a few moments and recognized the wonder inherent in perception and inquiry.