on scientific responsibility and politics

Mr Jairam Ramesh, our beloved Minister commented day before yesterday that "Scientists should not display arrogance while discussing the issue. I am trying to find a middle path, which means (between) anti-democratic nature of NGOs and arrogance of scientists,".

What I cannot understand here is that why scientists need to be humble when they are dealing with brazen politicians and diplomats who enjoy power to manipulate whatever outcome be there. I cannot understand why is that only scientists need to be modest. If a politician can tell an angry protestor that he needs mental help, a scientist can equally be abrasive, especially when in a scenario where science is being buried deep in commercialization and its economic and political impacts ignored. What science does to this world is unique. Science puts the chaos in perspective. It gives a direction for the future policies of the entire world. But, instead of honouring that commitment and taking into consideration whatever evidence science has to offer for or against an issue, in this case the introduction of Bt Brinjal into Indian agricultural machinery, we bind it inside the four walls of diplomacy and politeness. How dare you, Sir? How dare you insult the intelligence of another person because he didn’t agree with you? The scientific community often comes into criticism for its conclusions. For eg, consider the IPCC controversy over the Himalayan glaciers. Fine, they made a mistake. Instead of letting it slip, we politicize it. We say that, see… there is no problem now; our fields would be fine for ten more years. Of course, ultimately it is the head ache of the Government then, is it not? The current policy makers would be dead by then. The current political system to be blamed. Does anyone at all care about the near billion people who would find themselves pushed into oblivion? The masses make you, dear Sir. But you don’t consider the masses. That is the irony. Anyway, let us come back to the topic instead of making it another one of my random ramblings. If we, as a world do not utilise science for its merits, what is the difference between us and the lower beings? We use science for our convenience. Someone invented wheel… wonderful, now transportation is easy. Faraday told us how to channel electricity. Good, now we can enter modernity. Becquerel discovers radioactivity and suddenly we are on the track to nuclear energy. All is fine and good. But, what about the responsibility that we attribute to science? Where was that responsibility when Oppenheimer conceived the atomic bomb? Where was that responsibility when defense technology became a more important field than agricultural research? Is it science alone that is responsible? Or is it the raw human urge for power and war? And when a scientist or a group of scientists tells us something is wrong, do we ignore or heed them? When they do say something is wrong, they do it because this responsibility that we conveniently attribute to them is part of their selves. Instead of breeding more scientists who say no to every such issue (I believe science ought to say more nos than yeses when it comes to political policies. Thereby we invoke a more mature debate of why and why not.), we conform them to the existing framework of manipulation and ‘modesty’. It goes against everything science stands for. What we are doing is cultivating a brand of Galileos who relinquish the facts and bow down to the system. Naturally, it makes me wonder whether or not democracy as we see now has become another medieval church.

As for the NGO comment, dear sir, they exist because ‘GOs’ are not doing their jobs.