The relationship between science and power
Tracing the long complicated history between these two forces
I would like to start a conversation on the relationship between science and power. By “science” I mean the field of study (trying to figure out how the world works) and the people doing the studying (scientists, and, in an earlier era, priests and philosophers). By “power” I mean the ruling elite and the set of ideas, laws, and structures that allow them to exert control over society. This is just a kernel of an idea that I would like to expand with your help. Here are my initial thoughts:
Science and power have always gone together. It works by a sleight of hand whereby the rulers claim that they are closer to God and their scientific advisors give them legitimacy by being able to predict things in the natural world.
The relationship is fraught. Science needs power to convert ideas into wealth. Power needs science in order to stay in control of the population. But I doubt the two camps like each other very much. They both think of themselves as superior to the other. But one cannot survive without the other so they are stuck in an uneasy marriage throughout history. They are united though in their contempt for the peasants.
Grossly oversimplifying here:
The rulers of ancient Egypt, the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans drew their power from an alliance with astronomers. [Scientific focus: the heavens, but really, the growing seasons.]
The Roman Empire from the engineers. [Scientific focus: the earth.]
The Middle Ages witnessed an alliance between the ruling class and allopathic medicine with the help of the church. [Scientific focus: the body.]
The British and U.S. empires depended on mastery of shipbuilding, gunpowder, metals (for cannons and steam engines), and then later, electricity, chemistry, and physics. [Scientific focus: the elements.]
The emerging biowarfare empire is an alliance between the ruling class and the fields of genetics/virology. [Scientific focus: RNA and DNA.]
But then there’s a twist. In every era, the scientists who are in league with the ruling elite become “The Science” (the official story about how the world works). But good science almost never comes from the insiders. The biggest breakthroughs in the history of science usually come from the outsiders, rebels, and the iconoclasts. So there’s a paradox here in that proper science often dies when it makes an unholy alliance with the state.
Even more important, in every era, ordinary people often have a better understanding of science and medicine than the official gatekeepers. So, working through the examples from above:
Peasant farmers in ancient Egypt and what is now Central and South America surely knew the heavens quite well (they stared at them every night) and also could predict the seasons as well as any astronomer (based on their first-hand knowledge of the land, soil, and plants). While giant stone pyramids are impressive political achievements, people usually knew the movement of the sun from watching sunrise and sunset as measured against landmarks on the horizon.
Others will know the Roman context better than I do. And maybe it doesn’t fit the model that I’m describing? But if, for example, the Romans had better ways of using the insights of ordinary people in building roads and aqueducts please let me know in the comments.
In the Middle Ages, natural (folk) ways of healing were vastly superior to official medical practices. This is why the common people sought out natural healers and midwives. The popularity and efficacy of these healers posed a threat to existing power structures and so throughout the Middle Ages natural healers were called witches and burned at the stake.
The great breakthrough of the British and U.S. empires was the development of liberalism that created a new class of people, bourgeois entrepreneurs, who fueled technological innovation in shipbuilding, munitions, metals, and then later, electricity, chemistry, and physics. Liberalism and empire also created leisure time (for the entrepreneurial class) and economic rewards for innovation (for white men).
In our era, parents have always known better than most doctors about how to care for their children based on the intuitive bonds built from shared genetics, the power of intuition, and the fact that they spend all of their time together.
So, in every era there is “The Science” (or whatever it was called at that time). But “The Science” is rarely any good. As a result “The Science” is always in a battle against wisdom from below, indigenous knowledge, and independent scientific efforts that are usually better (more predictive) than the official narrative.
But even here there is a twist. Stalin took the idea of “science from below” too far with the promotion of Ukrainian peasant farmer Trofim Lysenko to the highest ranks of Soviet science and millions of people starved to death because his ideas were over-applied. So that might suggest that anytime science becomes enmeshed with the state — whether that is science from above or science from below — things go sideways and the result is a pause or regression in scientific development. Lysenko’s theories would not have survived long in the free market of ideas — it was only the backing of the Soviet state that turned them into a twenty-five year societal nightmare.
Now we have a new problem which is that the biowarfare industrial complex has not just merged with the state but overthrown it in a coup d’état. That’s what Covid is. Today “The Science” is performing ridiculous junk science and engaging in very profitable genocide throughout the developed world. So “The Science” has become totalitarian and hostile to science and life itself. That’s quite a turn of events in the long relationship between science and power!
So if one were designing a syllabus for a course on “Science & Power” what should be on it? What books, articles, podcasts, films, and videos provide the most insight into the relationship between science and power? (I know there’s an entire field of Science, Technology, & Society studies. Yet in my experience too often they pull their punches and are deferential to science in ways that distort reality and leave society vulnerable to the predations of corrupt scientists and doctors.)
Here are the resources that I have gathered so far:
Scientists and doctors arguing about the scientific process:
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959) by Karl Popper.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975) by Paul Feyerabend.
Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health (1976) by Ivan Illich.
Divided Legacy Vols. I-IV (1973–1994) by Harris Coulter (recently reissued by the Brownstone Institute!).
The Fate of Knowledge (2001) by Helen Longino.
Rebels and iconoclasts who follow the money:
Witches, Midwives & Nurses: A History of Women Healers (1973) by Deirdre English and Barbara Ehrenreich.
Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America (1979) by E. Richard Brown.
Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science (2011) by Philip Mirowski.
“The Weaponization of ‘Science’” (2017) by James Corbett.
“The Crisis of Science” (2019) by James Corbett.
The Real Anthony Fauci (2021) by Robert Kennedy, Jr.
The Wuhan Cover Up (2023) by Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Court cases that reveal the relationship between corrupt science and power:
A Civil Action (1995) by Jonathan Harr.
Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer’s Twenty-Year Battle against DuPont (2019) by Robert Bilott.
Alternative ways of seeing and knowing:
The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate (2016) by Peter Wohlleben.
Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants (2020) by Robin Wall Kimmerer.
Terra Viva, My Life in a Biodiversity of Movements (2022) by Vandana Shiva.
Some historians, anthropologists, and sociologists weigh in:
We Have Never Been Modern (1991) by Bruno Latour.
“Pandora’s Box” (1992) and “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” (2011) by Adam Curtis.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997) by Jared Diamond.
The Invention of Science (2015) by David Wootton.
There are some wonderful resources on these lists and yet I feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface of this topic. For example, I don’t have much information on the relationship between science and power in antiquity. Furthermore, military spending often drives scientific and medical advancement yet I have no resources on that topic.
What books, articles, podcasts, films, and videos would you add to these lists to illuminate the complicated relationship between science and power?
Blessings to the warriors. 🙌
Prayers for everyone fighting to stop the iatrogenocide. 🙏
Huzzah for those who are building the parallel society our hearts know is possible. ✊
In the comments, please let me know what people should be reading, listening to, and watching in order to better understand the relationship between science and power.
As always, I welcome any corrections.
Toby, for those of us who are geeks and / or on a book buying spree, would you consider compiling all the suggestions into a post (or maybe copying them into the original post)? I’ve tried to scroll through the 179 ish comments to see if the books I wanted to suggest have already been mentioned or not.
So please forgive me for any double ups, and here are my suggestions:
- “Colonising the Body: State Medicine and Epidemic Disease in 19th Century India” by David Arnold. A fascinating tour through the now most populous country on earth and how all the same tricks were applied 200 years ago (getting people to buy into injections by getting “natives of influence” to encourage people, social stigmatisation, dismissing Ayurveda etc).
As an Indian, my favourite part in the book is the part where Arnold describes how baffled Indian doctors are by reductionist allopathy which appears to be centred around endless dissections. Indian medical students often refused to do dissections as it was considered taboo to cut up someone’s aunt, brother, father, etc - and anyway, what on earth can you learn about curing whole living people from cutting up dead people?! (Besides anatomy - good for orthopaedics maybe but not most diseases - Indian doctors tended to take a more holistic view that wasn’t just materialist / physicalist)
- “Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime” by Peter Goetzsche (Cochrane Collaboration). Traces how power operates to craft science and create deadly medicines while evading public accountability.
- Final chapter of Robert OJ Becker’s “The Body Electric” where he talks about how his work was censored and funding withdrawn (rest of the book is more scientific info).
- Anti-Diet by Christy Harrison - about the dieting and wellness industry and its dodgy science. Related books are Intuitive Eating by Evelyn Trebole and Denise Minger’s blog “Raw Food SOS: Rescuing Good Health from Bad Science” is brilliant in dissecting headline studies on food’s impact on health (though less about the political stuff). Sadly all these authors have superb analysis when it comes to the diet world but fell prey to COVID dogma - but nonetheless useful resources.
- “Death by Food Pyramid: How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health” by Denise Minger
- “Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion Dollar Profits At Our Expense” by Dr Claus Köhnlein, Dr Samantha Bailey MD, and Dr Stefan Scoglio PhD.
- “Béchamp or Pasteur? A lost chapter in the history of biology.” By Ethel D Hume (1923). Also contains “Pasteur, Plagiarist, Imposter” by R Pearson (1942). Slightly more science than politics but certainly shows how Pasteur cuddling up to the wealthy and generally being a charismatic showman has grossly skewed the science.
- “The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny” by Drs Samantha and Mark Bailey, MDs. Also “Can you catch a cold: Untold history and human experiments” by Daniel Roytas. “Terrain Therapy” by Ulric Williams was first published in 1930’s on similar themes and while its not a political economy type of book, its fascinating that Williams could do presciently pinpoint the political - economic problem with healthcare in his rants in the book.
- Everything by Harold Hillman is brilliant. It’s more science than politics but shows how much nonsense there is in science, which has become all technology and no biology. I guess the technology-magicians wanted to sell their newfangled products like electron microscopes (and now PCR and Next Generation Sequencing DNA lab kits) despite the fact that you can’t learn much about biology through these…
I. First Book: Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques
II. Second book: The Living Cell
III. Third book: Cellular Structure of the Mammalian Nervous System
IV. Fourth book: The Case for New Paradigms in Cell Biology - originally titled Letter to Students of Biology of the Twenty First Century
V. Fifth book: Atlas of the Cellular Structure of the Human Nervous System
VI. Sixth and final book: Evidence Based Cell Biology, with Some Implications for Clinical Research
- Books and podcasts by Dr Jack Kruse, a neurosurgeon also all great
- Investigative journalism articles by Rebecca Strong’s Substack “Down the Rabbit Hole”. Also see her piece on Medium “Putting Big Bad Pharma Back on Trial in the COVID-19 Era”.
“If our society wants science it must choose between totalitarianism and democracy. There can be no compromise.”
An essential read. From back when the Council on Foreign Relations publicly questioned totalitarianism instead of demanding it, the journal of the CFR, Foreign Affairs, shared more truth than it hid. This 1941 article provides a fascinating insight to the field of science under Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. And asks questions about the role of science in a democracy. The number of parallels to what we are experiencing today are striking.
Science in the Totalitarian State
Foreign Affairs, January, 1941
https://web.archive.org/web/20181125112623/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1941-01-01/science-totalitarian-state
My selected excerpts below:
"The totalitarian conception of the relation of science to the state is remarkably elastic. When political expediency so determines, the whole concept is modified. "
…
"This Nazi and Soviet pursuit of "rebels" may seem absurd, but actually it is logical. An artist or a scientist in Germany and in Russia serves the state. He therefore cannot separate his politics from his strictly professional activities. If he departs from the prevailing official ideology he automatically becomes an anti-Nazi in Germany and a counter-revolutionary in the Soviet Union."
…
"It was also charged that Soviet materialistic works on cosmology "have been suppressed by the enemies of the people." In other words, because Marx and Engels were saturated in Victorian materialism, which followed Newton in picturing the universe as a colossal machine instead of a problem in higher geometry, all the experimental and observational evidence that supports relativity must be rejected.
How does science like this tyranny? A few bold spirits still survive in Germany and Russia, but, on the whole, there is a remarkable pliancy of the scientific mind in both countries."
…
"The Russian gift of recantation, which marked the trials of Party members accused of adherence to Trotsky, manifests itself in science as well as in politics.
Back of the ideologies of the dictators, back of the professional pliancy, is something more than political expediency, something more than blind obedience. Long before the world ever heard of Mussolini and Stalin and Hitler it was in a state of social unrest. The revolutions that overthrew the Romanoffs and the Hohenzollerns, the upheavals that gave British labor new rights and privileges, were expressions of dissatisfaction with the social structure. To say that the dictators emerged because science and technology had taken possession of society and stamped it with a pattern utterly different from that which the égalitarians of the eighteenth century knew is an over-simplification. There are psychic factors that cannot be ignored -- inner drives, national traditions, habits of life. Yet if the dictators are to be overthrown, if democracy is to be preserved, the part that science and technology played in the rise of democracy cannot be ignored. Research produces not only change within science itself but social change. The democratic method is to adapt social change to technological change. The dictators are trying to do the contrary.
In considering the relation of science to the dictators we must bear in mind that the human mind is intrinsically no better than it was 10,000 years ago. It simply has acquired new interests under social tension. In the Middle Ages social tension expressed itself so strongly in religion that there were 110 holy days in the year; a new ecclesiastical architecture was evolved; all Europe rose to the spiritual need of wresting Jerusalem from the "infidel." Today, however, it means more to our society to discover how the atom is constituted than that a new ecclesiastical architecture is developed, more that the mechanism of heredity is revealed than that savages in Africa are converted to Christianity. Perhaps its pragmatic attitude has led science to ignore essential ethical values. But the point is that science dominates our society, and that if our society wants science it must choose between totalitarianism and democracy. There can be no compromise."
…
"When the business man and the inventor were freed from this aristocratic fetishism, machine after machine appeared, and with the machines came mass production and mass consumption of identical goods. Without standardization mass production is impossible. To have cheap, good clothes we must all dress more or less alike. To bring automobiles within the reach of millions we must have the assembly line. To live inexpensively in cities we must eat packaged foods, dwell in more or less standardized homes, bathe in standardized bath tubs, and draw water and gas from common reservoirs. Mass production has brought it about that the average life in New York is hardly different from the average life in Wichita. The same motion pictures brighten the screen, the same voices and music well out of loud-speakers in every town, identical cans of tomatoes and packages of cereals are to be found on all grocers' shelves, identical electric toasters brown identical slices of bread everywhere, identical refrigerators freeze identical ice cubes in a million kitchens. If gunpowder made all men the same height, in Carlyle's classic phrase, mass production has standardized behavior, pleasures, tastes, comforts, life itself.
Mass production and labor-saving devices have created a social crisis. We cannot have mass production and mechanization without planning. Engineers and their financial backers are planners. Dictators are planners. Whether they know it or not, most corporation executives and engineers are necessary totalitarians in practice. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin clearly have the instincts of engineers. Their states are designed social structures."
…
"Often enough we hear it said that mechanical invention has outstripped social invention -- that new social forms must be devised if we are to forestall the economic crises that are brought about by what is called the "impact of science" on society. Communism and Fascism are social inventions, intended among other things to solve the economic problems created by technological change under the influence of capitalism. They attempt to answer a question: Are the technical experts and their financial backers to shape the course of society unrestrained, and even to rule nations directly and indirectly, as they did in France, and as they do in part in Great Britain and the United States? The totalitarians say that a capitalistic democratic government cannot control the experts, the inventors, the creators of this evolving mechanical culture. They therefore have decided to take control of thinking, above all scientific thinking, out of which flow the manufacturing processes and the machines which change life.
But science is more than coal-tar dyes and drugs, electric lamps, airplanes, radio, television, relativity and astrophysics. It is an attitude of mind -- what Professor Whitehead has called "the most intimate change in outlook that the human race has yet experienced." If Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin are to rule, that scientific attitude will have to be abandoned when it conflicts with the official social philosophy. But if it is abandoned there can be no Newtons, no Darwins, no Einsteins. Science will be unable to make discoveries which will change the human outlook and, with the outlook, the social order. If the world wants to preserve science as a powerful social force for good the research physicist, chemist and biologist must be permitted to work without intellectual restraint, i.e. to enjoy the fundamental freedom of democracy."
…
"An essential to this progress has been that the scientist has not demanded that his theory be considered "true." He does not profess to know what the truth is. A theory must work. It is an expedient. When it ceases to work it is thrown overboard or modified. This method of merciless self-examination cannot be followed in a society where the result of each investigation is predetermined for extraneous reasons. Democracy flounders before it arrives at satisfactory solutions of its social problems. But it is better to flounder and progress than to follow the philosophy of a dictator and to remain socially and scientifically static."