“As president, I believe that robotics can inspire young people to pursue science and engineering. And I also want to keep an eye on those robots in case they try anything.”
— Barack Obama
Exactly what I was thinking
about the article “A Universal Truth”, but more thought out and well-reasoned. Sheila Jasanoff’s response, “Lessons for Science Envoys”, makes many excellent points about the traps that we can fall into when discussing a “universal” anything in the context of diplomacy. One of the best I think focuses on the misconception that more science necessarily means more progress:
But just as more food does not necessarily solve the problem of global hunger, so too more science cannot be expected to solve the basic problems of development. Technical knowledge and skills are indispensable for problem solving, but answers can be only as good as the processes that defined the problems.
My other favorite point is that science is not the entirely objective search for “universal” truth that the previous article states, but that scientists are subject to the same social, economic, and cultural forces as everyone else. I think she makes the point by asking what kind of science is going to be promoted in the proposed scientific diplomacy
Which versions of science and technology will our expert ambassadors carry when they travel abroad: science for the people or science for profit and power? Will American science serve the democratic humility of smokeless cookstoves, waterless toilets, and community clinics or the autocratic hubris of nuclear technology, genetically modified miracle crops, and pricey cancer drugs?
I hope that with this kind of attitude science and diplomacy can both benefit from this program.
