Scientific imperialism

This article or section reads like an editorial or opinion piece and may require cleanup. Please improve this article by rewriting this article or section in an encyclopedic style to make it neutral in tone. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Category:Wikipedia help for help, or this article's talk page. (documentation, talk)(October 2009)

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2008. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2008. It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic. Tagged since April 2009. It contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Tagged since March 2008.

Scientific imperialism is a term that appears to have been coined by Dr. Ellis T. Powell when addressing the Commonwealth Club of Canada on 8 September 1920. Though he defined imperialism as "the sense of arbitrary and capricious domination over the bodies and souls of men," yet he used the term "scientific imperialism" to mean "the subjection of all the developed and undeveloped powers of the earth to the mind of man."^[1]

In modern parlance, however, scientific imperialism refers to situations in which critics perceive science to act imperiously. Philosopher of science John Dupré described it (in his 2006 paper Against Scientific Imperialism) as "the tendency to push a good scientific idea far beyond the domain in which it was originally introduced, and often far beyond the domain in which it can provide much illumination." He also wrote that "devotees of these approaches are inclined to claim that they are in possession not just of one useful perspective on human behavior, but of the key that will open doors to the understanding of ever wider areas of human behavior."^[2]

Scientific imperialism has also been charged against "those who believe that the study of politics can and should be modelled on the natural sciences, a position defended most forcibly in the United States, and those who have dissented, viewing this ambition as methodologically unjustified and ethically undesirable."^[3]

Critique of power

Writing about scientific exploration by James Cook in the 18th century, the textbook Worlds Together, Worlds Apart defined scientific imperialism as the "pursuit of power through the pursuit of knowledge,".^[4] Arthur Peacocke wrote that its later pejorative use may reflect the frustration felt by some with "the limitations of reductive scientism (scientific imperialism)."^[5] Theologian and Christian apologist J. P. Moreland denounces "the myth that science is the model of truth and rationality still grips the mind of much of our popular and scientific culture", stating that "though philosophers of science over the past few decades have gutted many of the claims of this scientific imperialism, many thinkers, knee-jerk agnostics, and even judges persist in the grip of this notion."^[6] He also questions the notion that "successful scientific theories are true or approximately true models of the world,"^[6] and expresses a desire to "dethrone science from an imperialistic stance over philosophy and theology."^[6] Science journalist Ted Nield believes that scientists harbor "unreal expectations and mistaken assumptions" in a hubristic and imperialistic desire to extend the methods and ideology of science into regions of human investigation for which its methods might be unsuited, such as to religions and the humanities.^[7]

Accusations of being the "religion of the intellectuals"

Behavioral psychologist J. E. R. Staddon defined scientific imperialism as "the idea that all decisions, in principle, can be made scientifically" and stated that it has become a "religion of the intellectuals".^[8] John Dupré also criticised "a natural tendency, when one has a successful scientific model, to attempt to apply it to as many problems as possible", and described these extended applications as being "dangerous".^[9] Such notions have been compared to cultural imperialism, and to a rigid and intolerant form of intellectual monotheism.^{[10] [11] [12] [13]}

Feeling of marginalisation

Advocates of this critical position may describe themselves as marginalised and see their ideas described by scientists as irrational, and of being fairly or unfairly labelled as New Agers or religious romantics. In the science belief system, critics^[who?] argue that those who have a tight adherence to the core dogmas of science attract the greatest credibility, respect and reverence. It is further argued that scientists extol the exclusive virtues of the scientific paradigm over other modes of interpreting Nature, the world and human behavior. It seems a paternalistic attitude that scientists alone belong to an elite class of people who deal with matters of greatest importance,^[14] and may belittle the intellectual powers of the average citizen.

Medical research

Medical doctor Peter Wilmshurst has used the term to describe "poor people in developing countries...being exploited in research for the benefit of patients in the developed world", and advised that "the scientific community has a responsibility to ensure that all scientific research is conducted ethically".^[15] Another accusation lies in the alleged misappropriation of indigenous drugs in poor countries by drug companies in the developed world. Pharmacologist Elaine Elisabetsky wrote that "ethnopharmacology involves a series of sociopolitical, economic and ethical dilemmas, at various levels...frequently host country scientists, visiting scientists, and informants disagree...research efforts are (often) perceived as scientific imperialism; scientists are accused of stealing plant materials and appropriating traditional plant knowledge for financial profit and/or professional advancement. Many governments, as well as indigenous societies are increasingly reluctant to permit such research...historically neither native populations nor host countries have shared to a significant extent the financial benefits from any drug that reaches the market...unless these issues are amply discussed and fairly resolved, medicinal plant research runs the risk of serving ethically questionable purposes."^[16]

See also

• Antiscience
• Antireductionism
• Scientism
• Cultural imperialism
• Imperialism

References

Further reading

• Adas M., Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology and Ideologies of Western Dominance (New York, 1989)
• Alam A., Imperialism and Science in Race and Class Vol. 19, 1978, pp. 239–251
• Arnold D. (ed.), Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Society (Manchester,1989)
• Drayton R., Science and the European Empires in Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 23, 1995, pp. 503–510.
• Inkster I., Scientific Enterprise and the Colonial Model, Observations on Australian Experience in Historical Context in Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, 1985, pp. 677–704
• Mackenzie J.M., (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World (Manchester, 1990)
• Macleod R., On Visiting the “Moving Metropolis”: Reflections on the Architecture of Imperial Science in Reingold N and Rothenberg M (eds.) Scientific Colonialism (Washington, 1987)
• Macleod R., Passages in Imperial Science: From Empire to Commonwealth in Journal of World History, Vol. 4, 1993, pp. 117–150
• Palladino P. and Worboys M., Science and Imperialism in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993 pp. 91–102
• Petitjean P., Jami C., and Moulin A.M. (eds.), Science and Empires: Historical Case Studies about Scientific Development and European Expansion (Netherlands, 1992)
• Pyenson L., Cultural Imperialism and Exact Sciences revisited in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993, pp. 10–108
• Reingold N. and Rothenberg M., Scientific Colonialism: A Cross Cultural Comparison (Washington, 1987)
• Secord J., King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial Theme in Nineteenth Century British Geology in Victorian Studies Vol. 25,1982, pp. 413–443.

External links

• Duncan Bell (2006) Beware of false prophets: biology, human nature and the future of International Relations theory, International Affairs 82 (3), 493–510
• John Dupré, Against Scientific Imperialism, Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings 2, 1994: pp. 374-381
• John Dupré, The Disunity of Science (2006) Interviewed by Paul Newall
• E Elisabetsky, Sociopolitical, economical and ethical issues in medicinal plant research, J Ethnopharmacol, 1991 Apr; 32 (1-3): 235-9
• Ted Nield, The Madness of Scientists,
• J E R Staddon, Scientific Imperialism and Behaviorist Epistemology, Behavior and Philosophy, 2004
• Wilmshurst 314 (7084): 840 Comment > BMJ 1997;314(7084):840 (22 March), doi: Separated