Scientific Revolution Research Paper
Science and Capitalism If I were to take I guess, I would says that we all have been taught that capitalism drives innovation, technology, and scientific advancement. The teaching that competition, combined with the profit motive, pushes science to its limits and gives big corporations incentive to invent new medicines, drugs, and treatments is very common. We are also told that the free market is the greatest motivator for human advance, but in some cases that is not true. Patents, profits, and private ownership of the means of production are actually the greatest hindrances of science. Capitalism, in my opinion, is holding back science and technology.
…show more content…
Science and technology are greatly affected by marketing, production, and industries. The pharmaceutical industry often has ridiculously high prices and refuses to distribute medicines to those who can’t afford it. The extreme lack of drugs to combat the AIDS pandemic proves capitalism’s impotence to distribute medicine to those in need. The topic of AIDS research leads us to the discussion of the differences between the goals of science and the goals of industry. The vast majority of the funding for researching vaccines comes from government and non-profit groups. Of course the goals of non- profit groups are going to be to better the lives of the people whereas the pharmaceutical industry’s goal is to make a profit. In our capitalist society it wouldn’t make sense for the pharmaceutical industry to fund research to cure a disease when they make millions of dollars by selling medicines to help people with the disease rather than curing the disease. Since the research would not explicitly benefit their industry and make them yield profit they are not interested. The manufacturing industry in particular is supposedly where capitalist innovation is in its element. Competition between companies is supposed to lead to better products, lower prices, new technology and new innovation. Although the competition among industries may do that, it can also serve as a motivator to prevent new products from ever seeing the light of day. Companies will not only refuse to fund research for the development of a product that might hurt their industry, but in some cases they will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone else from doing the same research by obtaining patents. For example oil companies have purchased patents for NiMH batteries to prevent them from being used in electric vehicles because if vehicles no longer needed their oil they would go out of business. While the purchasing of patents is an effective way of shelving new innovations, there are even more ways the capitalist system holds back research and development. The very nature of a system based on competition makes collaborative research impossible. Whether it be the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry or any other, capitalism divides the best engineers and scientists among competing corporations. Any scientist working on a project most likely has to sign some sort of confidentiality paper which keeps them from sharing their findings with anyone else. Often, major advancements are made, not by an individual group researchers, but by many groups of researchers, so by keeping scientists from working together our society is holding back science. For example , when our country was worried that nuclear weapons were being developed in other countries scientists were able to temporarily rid the capitalist system and actually work together. The Manhattan project succeeded where private industry could not. The goals of science are not consistent with the goals of industry. If they were we would most likely have discovered many more things and would be even further in our progress of new scientific technology. When the goals of science do not have to fight the goals of industry scientists are no longer competing against each other but are working together. Not only do I believe that industry plays a negative role in science, but I also think that sexism and gender roles have had a negative relationship with science in our society. Historically science has been overwhelmingly dominated by male practitioners. People have argued that this is because there are fundamental differences in the way that men and women react with nature, and although that is true, why is the male way of reacting with nature make them have a greater role in science than women.
I think it all comes down to how history has shaped the role of the female. The Scientific Revolution, just like Capitalism, is traditionally viewed as a fundamentally good thing, but there are many arguments against this view. Before the Scientific Revolution society attempted to live in harmony with nature and the earth was seen as a mother. The Scientific Revolution is what changed this view. People began to question the way in which nature works and started thinking of the earth as a machine rather than a nurturer. This view lead to the exploitation of resources of the earth and could possibly lead to the destruction of our earth. The Scientific Revolution in general was a very sexist movement. Some even view the Scientific Revolution as a segway into the controlling nature of some men, and even rape because, “the purpose of the New Science was to unveil nature, lay bare her secrets, and penetrate her mysteries” (Merchant 1980). I do not
believe that the mysteries of earth were mean to be penetrated, and in that sense I can see why the parallel between rape and the relationship of scientists and nature can be drawn. Also, if we no longer view the earth as something sacred we may run into some of the problems brought up in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. “It’s just proteins, you know that! There is nothing sacred about cells and tissues...” (57). The idea or argument that scientists should be able to play around with protons and cells and tissues because they aren’t sacred is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. They are sacred, they are the building blocks of life, and to mess around with them is going against nature. I believe that it all comes down to respect. I think we must respect one another, and respect ourselves by doing what we think is right. Working in an industry when you think anything that is going on there is unethical or you do not agree with its policies is disrespectful to your boss, your coworkers and yourself. Exploiting mother nature is disrespectful, and sexism is disrespectful. Finally, I believe that if everyone were to actually stop and think about what they are doing and analyze how their actions are affecting other peoples lives, our society would be a much better place and our scientific technology and knowledge would flourish.
Science and technology are greatly affected by marketing, production, and industries. The pharmaceutical industry often has ridiculously high prices and refuses to distribute medicines to those who can’t afford it. The extreme lack of drugs to combat the AIDS pandemic proves capitalism’s impotence to distribute medicine to those in need. The topic of AIDS research leads us to the discussion of the differences between the goals of science and the goals of industry. The vast majority of the funding for researching vaccines comes from government and non-profit groups. Of course the goals of non- profit groups are going to be to better the lives of the people whereas the pharmaceutical industry’s goal is to make a profit. In our capitalist society it wouldn’t make sense for the pharmaceutical industry to fund research to cure a disease when they make millions of dollars by selling medicines to help people with the disease rather than curing the disease. Since the research would not explicitly benefit their industry and make them yield profit they are not interested. The manufacturing industry in particular is supposedly where capitalist innovation is in its element. Competition between companies is supposed to lead to better products, lower prices, new technology and new innovation. Although the competition among industries may do that, it can also serve as a motivator to prevent new products from ever seeing the light of day. Companies will not only refuse to fund research for the development of a product that might hurt their industry, but in some cases they will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone else from doing the same research by obtaining patents. For example oil companies have purchased patents for NiMH batteries to prevent them from being used in electric vehicles because if vehicles no longer needed their oil they would go out of business. While the purchasing of patents is an effective way of shelving new innovations, there are even more ways the capitalist system holds back research and development. The very nature of a system based on competition makes collaborative research impossible. Whether it be the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry or any other, capitalism divides the best engineers and scientists among competing corporations. Any scientist working on a project most likely has to sign some sort of confidentiality paper which keeps them from sharing their findings with anyone else. Often, major advancements are made, not by an individual group researchers, but by many groups of researchers, so by keeping scientists from working together our society is holding back science. For example , when our country was worried that nuclear weapons were being developed in other countries scientists were able to temporarily rid the capitalist system and actually work together. The Manhattan project succeeded where private industry could not. The goals of science are not consistent with the goals of industry. If they were we would most likely have discovered many more things and would be even further in our progress of new scientific technology. When the goals of science do not have to fight the goals of industry scientists are no longer competing against each other but are working together. Not only do I believe that industry plays a negative role in science, but I also think that sexism and gender roles have had a negative relationship with science in our society. Historically science has been overwhelmingly dominated by male practitioners. People have argued that this is because there are fundamental differences in the way that men and women react with nature, and although that is true, why is the male way of reacting with nature make them have a greater role in science than women.
I think it all comes down to how history has shaped the role of the female. The Scientific Revolution, just like Capitalism, is traditionally viewed as a fundamentally good thing, but there are many arguments against this view. Before the Scientific Revolution society attempted to live in harmony with nature and the earth was seen as a mother. The Scientific Revolution is what changed this view. People began to question the way in which nature works and started thinking of the earth as a machine rather than a nurturer. This view lead to the exploitation of resources of the earth and could possibly lead to the destruction of our earth. The Scientific Revolution in general was a very sexist movement. Some even view the Scientific Revolution as a segway into the controlling nature of some men, and even rape because, “the purpose of the New Science was to unveil nature, lay bare her secrets, and penetrate her mysteries” (Merchant 1980). I do not
believe that the mysteries of earth were mean to be penetrated, and in that sense I can see why the parallel between rape and the relationship of scientists and nature can be drawn. Also, if we no longer view the earth as something sacred we may run into some of the problems brought up in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. “It’s just proteins, you know that! There is nothing sacred about cells and tissues...” (57). The idea or argument that scientists should be able to play around with protons and cells and tissues because they aren’t sacred is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. They are sacred, they are the building blocks of life, and to mess around with them is going against nature. I believe that it all comes down to respect. I think we must respect one another, and respect ourselves by doing what we think is right. Working in an industry when you think anything that is going on there is unethical or you do not agree with its policies is disrespectful to your boss, your coworkers and yourself. Exploiting mother nature is disrespectful, and sexism is disrespectful. Finally, I believe that if everyone were to actually stop and think about what they are doing and analyze how their actions are affecting other peoples lives, our society would be a much better place and our scientific technology and knowledge would flourish.