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 It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources.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 charge that science seems to act imperiously, such 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." (John Dupré, Against Scientific Imperialism, 2006) Scientific imperialism can thus describe an attitude towards knowledge in which the beliefs and methods of science are assumed to be superior to, and to take precedence over, those of all other disciplines. "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 is also apparent in "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] And "the myth that science is the model of truth and rationality still grips the mind of much of our popular and scientific culture. Even 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] In its more extreme forms, critics of science even question whether we should "automatically assume ... that successful scientific theories are true or approximately true models of the world,"^[6] and periodically express a desire to "dethrone science from an imperialistic stance over philosophy and theology."^[6] Such extreme critics also claim that maybe scientists harbor "unreal expectations and mistaken assumptions, their hubris and their imperialism,"^[7] in their 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.

Religion of intellectuals

Scientific imperialism, "the idea that all decisions, in principle, can be made scientifically - has become, in effect, the religion of the intellectuals,"^[8] for it seems to reflect "a natural tendency, when one has a successful scientific model, to attempt to apply it to as many problems as possible. But it is also in the nature of models that these extended applications are dangerous."^[9] Science appears most imperialistic when it seeks domination over other disciplines and the subordination of 'non-believers,' or those it perceives as being insufficiently educated in scientific matters. It can thus involve some zealotry, and perhaps a fundamentalist belief that science alone stands supreme over all other modes of inquiry. In this it may resemble cultural imperialism, as a rather rigid and intolerant form of intellectual monotheism.^{[10] [11] [12]} If it acts monopolistically^[13] then science does indeed seem rigid, ruthless and intolerant.

Marginalised

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.

In medicine

Another meaning of this term is shown when it is claimed that "poor people in developing countries are being exploited in research for the benefit of patients in the developed world."^[15] In such an example, then it is clear that, "the scientific community has a responsibility to ensure that all scientific research is conducted ethically."^[15] Another example lies in the alleged misappropriation of indigenous drugs in poor countries by drug companies in the developed world: "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: