January 7, 2025 | David F. Coppedge

All Science Is Political Science

Unless independently wealthy,
scientists work at the behest of
government funding agencies

 

The scientific revolution may have begun with individual enthusiasts like Leeuwenhoek, Pascal and Joule who did their own work, but early on, natural philosophers learned not to bite the hand that feeds them. Scientific clubs like the Royal Society welcomed financial support from the king starting in 1760. The French Academy of Sciences often had to focus primarily on research projects directed by the crown. In the universities, citizen scientists like Boyle, churchmen like Copernicus and physicians like Harvey enjoyed the fellowship and support of the academy for the pure love of natural philosophy. Universities, however, gradually became dependent on governments for support of their science projects.

We often reiterate the necessity of integrity to do science. Integrity is a moral quality that motivates an honest researcher to accept failure when data do not fit a hypothesis, to reject groupthink and to pursue the truth wherever it leads. Integrity is not natural to the fallen human being, unless trained in morality that is supported by a righteous and truthful worldview.

Global Science

Doing science today, however, is expensive, and often requires years of specialized training and dependence on numerous colleagues and large institutions and labs. Occasionally science can be funded by a rich benefactor, but not without strings attached, especially when the benefactor is a corporation seeking to justify its products.

Today’s global science accentuates the problem of groupthink and dependency. “The national interest” is often a potent force accompanying government largess (i.e., taxpayer money). Accepting government funds is not necessarily harmful to scientific values. Some government funding agencies encourage integrity and independence. Watchdogs at universities occasionally rise up and expose scientific fraud and corruption, knowing these things are morally evil and threaten the reputation of science. Perhaps a majority of western researchers in particular give at least lip service to to integrity. They tend to think all scientists are honest: they value, therefore, openness and cooperation regardless of national identity. They rejoice when scientists from “disadvantaged” countries get to play ball.

Risky Openness

Some governments, however, value power over integrity. What if one government is bent on expanding its sphere of influence into another government’s sphere of influence? It happened before World War II and during the Cold War, and it is happening again today. A warning from a professor at Ohio State commands our attention over a growing threat.

Can science be both open and secure? Nations grapple with tightening research security as China’s dominance grows (3 Jan 2025, The Conversation). Carolyn Wagner is a professor of public affairs at Ohio State.

As a policy analyst and public affairs professor, I research international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked the increasingly close relationship in science and technology between the U.S. and China.

Chinese scientists must bow to the Dear Leader. All scientific research, original or stolen, belongs to the CCP. (Grok)

Wagner has a message to the scientifically-aware readers of the website: the relationship between China and the West has become strained. “The relationship evolved from one of knowledge transfer to genuine collaboration and competition,” she says, but in more recent years China’s desires for global dominance have grown to alarming levels. In the 1980s, only 2% of published science came from China. Now it is about 25%. While conservatives have warned that the large number of Chinese nationals at American universities are stealing our research for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to use against us, American liberals since the Obama administration have largely welcomed the free exchange of science with the Chinese and minimized the dangers. Wagner shares some disturbing facts.

Since 2013, China has been the top collaborator in science with the United States. Thousands of Chinese students and scholars have conducted joint research with U.S. counterparts.

Most American policymakers who championed the signing of the 1979 bilateral agreement thought science would liberalize China. Instead, China has used technology to shore up autocratic controls and to build a strong military with an eye toward regional power and global influence.

Wagner gives some statistics about Chinese influence. She says that science in China grows by subterfuge and theft.

Leadership in science and technology wins wars and builds successful economies. China’s growing strength, backed by a state-controlled government, is shifting global power. Unlike open societies where research is public and shared, China often keeps its researchers’ work secret while also taking Western technology through hacking, forced technology transfers and industrial espionage. These practices are why many governments are now implementing strict security measures.

It’s about time that western nations recognize the threat of power-hungry nations that care more about power than integrity. Fortunately, Canada, Australia, Germany and the USA (starting with Trump 45) started taking steps to limit Chinese technology theft. Japan is also increasing its security against President Xi Jinping’s power grabs.

The FBI claims China has stolen sensitive technologies and research data to build up its defense capabilities. The China Initiative under the Trump administration sought to root out thieves and spies. The Biden administration did not let up the pressure.

Conservatives in America have strong doubts about the effectiveness of Biden policies, given that he allowed a huge Chinese spy balloon to pass over the continental US before shooting it down, and has allowed many thousands of unvetted Chinese men with briefcases through the southern border. Some conservatives also warn of evidence of corrupting influence on the Biden family by China—a side issue that the Trump 47 administration may investigate further. The issue Wagner discusses could be equally applied to the situation in Iran, where the Islamic mullahs need “science” to refine uranium for building nuclear weapons they could use against Israel and the U.S.

The point here is that open scientific collaboration is a pipe dream in today’s global politics. Wagner asks whether science can be both open and secure. A globalist at heart, she sees scientific openness waning in response to the China threat.

The challenge for research institutions will be implementing these new requirements without creating a climate of suspicion or isolation. Retrenchment to national borders could slow progress. Some degree of risk is inherent in scientific openness, but we may be coming to the end of a global, collaborative era in science.

It’s not the 17th century any more. Integrity in science must take on new dimensions: protecting one’s research from evil uses by governments whose priority is domination over the globe. International science can be a form of warfare. It informs the Space Force, the other branches of the military, the growing influence of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, and national prestige. A return to openness in science requires protection from evil, and the promotion of peaceful governments where liberty and friendly collaboration is possible among scientists who value truth over power.

When I was at JPL in the early 2000s, all employees were required to understand regulations about “dual use” technologies—scientific findings that could be twisted to support war and endanger national security. This was very hard for scientists at the lab to accept. They like their international partners. They value openness. Some tend to be naive about the threat of evil, thinking that science by its very nature values the pursuit of truth no matter who engages in it. The State Department was very adamant about requirements involving what information could be shared, what meetings were open to foreign nationals, and what parts of the lab they could visit.

Project science teams in many institutions are close-knit social clubs, a mix of US citizens and foreign nationals. (DFC, 2007, JPL)

I saw how this sometimes grated on scientists in the Cassini program, who were friends with their reputable colleagues from Italy, the UK, France and Spain. These foreign nationals helped build instruments on the spacecraft and regularly attended project science meetings at the lab. Who would tell a friend they are not allowed to see something or share information? Such naivete, however, is dangerous. One crucial part of my job was helping the Cassini Security Officer and auditors from NASA and Caltech ensure that our computer systems were hardened against hackers and could not allow data to cross certain boundaries. The risk from Chinese hackers has escalated dramatically since I was there. It will be interesting to see how the incoming Trump administration handles the relationship with China.

Worldview Informs Policy Which Informs National Security

Wagner left out a very important subject in her report on national security risks from China. The Chinese government is Marxist! In stark contrast to western democracies that respect human rights, China is a communist dictatorship. Communists are dialectical materialists who accept Darwinism as gospel. Everyone in China doing business with America must share all scientific and technological knowledge acquired with the CCP, which has no qualms about technology theft. Probably most of its current military technology was obtained this way because of the naivete of American scientists and universities. Premier Krushchev used to boast that America would sell the Soviet Union the rope to hang them with. We can imagine President Xi laughing about the naivete of Americans who welcome so many of its students into their universities and even allow the formation of Confucius Clubs on campuses devoted to helping the CCP achieve its goals.

Solomon wrote often about integrity in his Proverbs, but he also wrote about prudence. Those values must be held in balance. Here are some words of wisdom from Proverbs:

    • When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent. (10:19)
    • A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly. (12:23)
    • The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving. (14:8)
    • The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps. (14:15)
    • The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it. (22:3, 27:12)

Ancient words from the Bible continue to give light in 2025. Let’s hope the leaders of America respect the true source of understanding: not Darwin, but the Creator of the heavens and the earth who communicated truth and wisdom to us in his word.

Promote integrity, prudence and wisdom. Give a Chinese student a Bible. It could be risky for the student, however, when returning to China.

 

 

 

 

(Visited 251 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply