Course description

The Politics behind Science

If you plan on a career in research after graduation, it’s easy to forget that to do research you actually need funding.  For public universities, the majority of the funding comes directly from the government or international agencies. It is nearly impossible for laboratories to survive on private donations, and even small cuts in government and international funding can be very damaging to scientific progress.

Knowing that the funding for new technology, medicine and science comes from government offices that are constantly changing personnel (like ministers, presidents and civil servants) brings up an interesting question: do political changes cause fluctuations in the amount of money labs receive?

The answer is simple: yes.

Political leadership actually has a huge impact on science funding, and the coming years could see a shift in the number of grants and where money is allocated. An area where this change in political power may be especially important is stem cell research. This is a new field that could have enormous effects in medicine. At the University of Southern California, a man who was paralyzed had stem cell therapy and eventually recovered movement in his hands, for instance. Stem cells are currently studied to treat heart, lung and brain disease, kidney failure, type 1 diabetes and gastrointestinal issues.

 In 2001, US President George W. Bush signed an order that prevented any government funding going to stem cell research. This forced several labs to reduce their work, and had profound international effects. Before that, American researchers cooperated with international partners to lead the world in stem cell research, but with the loss of funding, scientists from the U.S. were no longer valuable partners.

Only a few months after taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama passed an order to reverse Bush’s policy. This action allowed scientists greater freedom in the number of embryonic stem cells they were allowed to work with and returned government funding.

Trump was more in agreement with Bush’s views on stem cell research. Though Trump did not publicly give a clear idea of his beliefs, Vice President Mike Pence stated many times that he was morally opposed to it. The scientific community is expecting new budget increases now that Biden has been elected in a field that is finally starting to see progress in treatments.

Another area where funding matters is the field of climate change. Obama allowed a large number of power stations to run on clean, renewable energy through government grants. He also reduced carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. It was not surprising to see a drop in the amount of funding for clean energy projects when Trump openly said climate change was fake news from China. He removed some of the restrictions on emissions and wished to see a move back towards using more coal.

Although we want to believe that science is an objective field built around research and facts, it is undeniable that the funding behind it comes from personal or political beliefs. Given the current divisive political climate, it is unrealistic to expect areas of government funding to continue as they are. Though it is difficult to know the impact such a dramatic ideological change in government will have on the scientific community, doubtless we will see many shifts in the years to come.

What will i learn?