The de-politicization of science

ASU Biodesign Institute held a conference today titled “Dangerous Liaisons: Dual Use Research in the 20^th Century” that addresses the role of regulation in research that can be utilized formally in a laboratory or can be taken out of the lab and used to incite harmful results. A common example of this is portrayed in biotechnology and the ability to recreate eradicated diseases and the powerful potential of this information and knowledge. In retrospect of today’s lecture by Dr. Miller, I was confronted with the idea of the de-politicization of science that was mentioned by Mark Brown in his book Science in Democracy. Here the author examines the claim that “science has been politicized implies it was previously not political. And assuming that politicization is reversible, things that have become political can be depoliticized as well.” If science has become politicized, is it possible to depoliticize it and if so than is the response to dual research serving as an example of this de-politicization?

There were four specialists that presented at the dual research conference and the person of interest to this discussion, in my opinion, was Edward H. You (FBI Supervisory Special Agent, Bioterrorism Program, Countermeasures Unit I). He was involved in the creation of a self-regulatory government system that allows researchers to provide information about suspect persons or actions regarding dual use research that may pose a risk to the general public. What was surprising about this move by the FBI is the severity of the situation regarding research information and the amount responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the science community, it allows them to self-regulate within their lab or the science community. This group emphasized government regulation without involvement. Instead of directly regulating science, the government chose to support researchers through assistance reflecting a situation where neither power nor conflict was involved, making it fall into Mark Brown’s category of non-politics. The government agency recognized the importance of the science community in informing policy and wanted to address the situation without restricting science, as is the case with increased regulations and obstacles to funding. They were aware of the negative impact this would have upon research initiatives. Furthermore, it seemed that there was an honest sense of collaboration between the government agency and researchers on this topic and a collaborative initiative to educate researchers on awareness of the dual use of their work. In addition to creating a situation of informed researchers, the agency recognized the need to create a space where the public could get involved in science research to encourage the progress of science. The approach that this particular government agency took to address issues of research that could very easily have demanded legislative restrictions demonstrates what may be a new era of learning to trust scientists to self regulate in the interest of the community and thus create a situation that may lead to the de-politicization of science.