Science is not Neutral
- Thread starter Blackking
- Start date
It’s Autumn 1970, the leaves are turning, kids are back at school, it’s British Science Festival season, and the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science (BSSRS, Bisrus to its friends) is itching for a fight.
BSSRS had been founded about 18 months previously, a largely establishment affair, with a Nobel Prize winning chair (Maurice Wilkins), an inaugural conference held at the Royal Society and a letter of support signed by such luminaries as JD Bernal, Lawrence Bragg, Francis Crick, Richard Doll, Julian Huxley, Hans Krebs, Lionel Penrose, Max Perutz and Bertrand Russell. However, the core of BSSRS was a group of quite radical activists. They weren’t just the old-school science Left like Bernal or Huxley, but a product of 1968, and more sceptical of both science and the state.
Earlier that year, during the General Election, BSSRS had provoked a small spat with John Maddox - editor of Nature - over whether or not it was ok to talk about science being neutral on public policy. But they wanted to dare to do something a bit more disruptive. Inspired by scientist-activists in the US invading a AAAS meeting in Chicago earlier that year - you can read the FBI file on this - they decided to occupy the equivalent event of the British Science Association (then known as the BA) under a banner “Science is not Neutral.”
They started by just asking questions. But the panel chairman and speakers stifled any attempts of debate, dismissing political discussion as irrelevant. The BA seemed to be built on an inflexible culture and internal structure, too reliant on industrial sponsorship to positively challenge debate on the social implications of science. Frustrated, they occupied a mid-conference teach-in. It was designed to be the anti-thesis of how they saw a BA session, with no set-piece speeches, and no restrictions on what could or could not be asked.
Possibly most mischievous, they also got an advance press-copy of Lord Todd’s Presidential address and distributed it to the audience, with added annotations. Or “rude comments” as one activist recently described it. Lord Todd had been one of the original signatures to the founding of BSSRS, so this was an explicit turn in policy as much as anything else. It’s one of the better embargo break stories in the history of science, and arguably a reaction to the BA media machine as much as anything else. As Steven and Hilary Rose wrote in 1973, looking back: “Street theatre and interventions at lectures brought some relief from the boredom of the BA meeting which, while of little significance to scientists, continued to command an inordinate amount of space in newspaper coverage. The journalists, with an almost audible sigh of relief, joined the BSSRS criticisms to some of their own.”
BSSRS had been founded about 18 months previously, a largely establishment affair, with a Nobel Prize winning chair (Maurice Wilkins), an inaugural conference held at the Royal Society and a letter of support signed by such luminaries as JD Bernal, Lawrence Bragg, Francis Crick, Richard Doll, Julian Huxley, Hans Krebs, Lionel Penrose, Max Perutz and Bertrand Russell. However, the core of BSSRS was a group of quite radical activists. They weren’t just the old-school science Left like Bernal or Huxley, but a product of 1968, and more sceptical of both science and the state.
Earlier that year, during the General Election, BSSRS had provoked a small spat with John Maddox - editor of Nature - over whether or not it was ok to talk about science being neutral on public policy. But they wanted to dare to do something a bit more disruptive. Inspired by scientist-activists in the US invading a AAAS meeting in Chicago earlier that year - you can read the FBI file on this - they decided to occupy the equivalent event of the British Science Association (then known as the BA) under a banner “Science is not Neutral.”
They started by just asking questions. But the panel chairman and speakers stifled any attempts of debate, dismissing political discussion as irrelevant. The BA seemed to be built on an inflexible culture and internal structure, too reliant on industrial sponsorship to positively challenge debate on the social implications of science. Frustrated, they occupied a mid-conference teach-in. It was designed to be the anti-thesis of how they saw a BA session, with no set-piece speeches, and no restrictions on what could or could not be asked.
Possibly most mischievous, they also got an advance press-copy of Lord Todd’s Presidential address and distributed it to the audience, with added annotations. Or “rude comments” as one activist recently described it. Lord Todd had been one of the original signatures to the founding of BSSRS, so this was an explicit turn in policy as much as anything else. It’s one of the better embargo break stories in the history of science, and arguably a reaction to the BA media machine as much as anything else. As Steven and Hilary Rose wrote in 1973, looking back: “Street theatre and interventions at lectures brought some relief from the boredom of the BA meeting which, while of little significance to scientists, continued to command an inordinate amount of space in newspaper coverage. The journalists, with an almost audible sigh of relief, joined the BSSRS criticisms to some of their own.”
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
come on we all know science is a liberal myth
you're not neutral
I science'd today
I science'd today
you guys usually say things and make claims opposite of what actual scientist state.
so I find that very interesting.
and fyi science doesn't exist without humans. Science =/= nature. Science =/= laws of the universe........ Well actually it is = to the laws ( the ones we invented)
Science is a system.... not an object or thing. The system is dependent upon factors, including human factors. So I going to go out on a limb and guess that you can't understand why your post is foolish.
And actually these days scientist and science in general is so dependent upon group think, building on older theories, and research funds, and government that........ it's even less neutral.
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Science can only be 2 things, demonic or angelic. Do you use science to discover things to help all people or do you use science to discover ways to hurt and dominate. Its all how its applied in the mind of the individual friends, and if that individual is a demon well, the results are obviousl.
I reckon that the scientific method is objective. Tell me why it isn't or should I go first?
ThatTruth777
Superstar
can science be delicious
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Magically delicious. It created Lucky Charms which to me is a bit of an overrated cereal but hey, its good for a couple of bowls, friend.can science be delicious
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
i actually made a thread about this and the thread title is correct, science is not neutral
The Marriage of Science and Empire
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-marriage-of-science-and-empire.245820/
The Discovery of Ignorance
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-discovery-of-ignorance.220555/
this guy is the illest, the way he breaks things down is
im about the post his talk on capitalism
The Marriage of Science and Empire
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-marriage-of-science-and-empire.245820/
The Discovery of Ignorance
http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-discovery-of-ignorance.220555/
this guy is the illest, the way he breaks things down is
im about the post his talk on capitalism