|
|
|
Science
sits at the very core of the current conflict
|
Whatever
the outcome of the Iraq war, it will leave many wounds that require healing.
Science can help in this process, but only if applied judiciously.
All wars are ugly. And modern science and technology, for all their precision
and apparent efficiency, have not made them any less so. Indeed, the reality is
that in many ways science sits at the very core of the current conflict: the
power of high-technology weaponry is being brought to bear on Iraq because of
its alleged continued possession of other weapons — chemical, biological and
perhaps even nuclear — that also originated in the research laboratory.
The
presence of science on the battlefields of Iraq is a powerful reminder that it
offers the potential to do harm as well as good. This is also one of the lessons
that need to be borne in mind when the world picks up the pieces of the current
conflict. There seems little doubt about the final outcome. The task ahead will
be to patch up the damage that has been created in the process.
The
essentially Western 'scientific' approach to problems will
only create further resentment if applied in ways that seek
to reinforce the dominance of Western values in the process |
|
Whether
mending wounded bodies, bringing together torn communities, or rebuilding deeply
bruised institutions — including the United Nation itself — the more benign
face of science could make it a powerful ally in the healing process. But
applying science to this process without due care and with excessive
self-confidence is likely to prove counter-productive. For that would only
reinforce perceptions of the relative balance of power in the modern world, one
of the origins of the current conflict.
Indeed,
reconstruction needs to be done in a sensitive way if it is to be successful.
The essentially Western 'scientific' approach to problems, ranging from medical
care to urban rebuilding, will only create further resentment if applied in ways
that seek to reinforce the dominance of Western values in the process. What will
be needed are culturally sensitive strategies that find ways of embedding modern
science and technology in the fabric of lives and lifestyles based on very
different traditions and value systems.
A New Paradigm
|
|
|
The
current conflict is between the scientific ‘haves’ and
‘have-nots’ |
History
provides little to guide us in this task. In international conflicts in the
recent past, the political landscape — and the role of science within this
landscape — has been significantly different. For example, the Cold War was a
period in which both sides of the conflict could claim significant scientific
prowess. Indeed it was the strength of this prowess in producing — through the
development of nuclear weapons — the threat of virtually global destruction
that gave this confrontation its particularly deadly characteristics.
At
the same time, the common possession of this prowess meant that both sides
could, at times, speak in the common language of science. And this in turn meant
that it was possible for scientists, through organizations such as the Pugwash
Conferences on Science and World Affairs, to promote the cause of peace by
providing a channel of communication through which moderation could prevail.
Such influence was successfully exerted on topics ranging from the testing of
nuclear weapons to the need for international controls on chemical weapons.
But
the end of the Cold War, and even more significantly the events of 11 September
2001, have put an end to that approach. The current conflicts are no longer
between rival powers possessing comparable skills in science and technology,
even if putting them to the service of different ideologies. Rather, it is
between the scientific 'haves' and 'have-nots', where science is no longer seen
as a potential bridge linking common interests but, more often than not, one
more instrument of political oppression and attempted cultural hegemony.
Respecting Value Systems
|
|
Reconstruction
needs to be done in a sensitive way if it is to be successful |
If
this shift is true at the material level, it is also true at the religious
level. One argument currently being heard in some quarters is that science forms
a universal system of belief that has the power to bring together communities
based on very different value systems. This appears to be the hope expressed by
some of the participants at a symposium on science, religion and values
organized earlier this month by the Third World Academy of Sciences at its
headquarters in Trieste, Italy (see Muslim
world pledges more science academies and Wrestling
with Islam's flagging science base).
There was certainly a general recognition at the symposium of the fact that,
taken as whole, Islamic countries invest significantly less in science than
countries in the West. But there was little consensus on whether this could be
blamed on religious, or even cultural, factors. Some argued that an excessive
influence of religious belief undermined pressure to invest in science for
economic and social development. Others, however, pointed out that many Muslim
countries had strong scientific traditions, and suggest that this lack of
investment was the outcome, as much as the cause, of economic underdevelopment.
Again,
as so often in the modern world, the message appears to be that the "one
solution fits all" approach of globalization will not work. Science, like
the modernism of which it forms a central component, must be molded to the needs
and values of communities and nations. It cannot afford to be seen as a device
by which one nation seeks to impose its needs and values on another.
The
Challenge Of Reconstruction
|
|
The
potential contribution of science in the reconstruction process is
enormous |
This is the dilemma at the heart of the reconstruction process that must take
place in Iraq — indeed in other parts of the Middle East as well — once the
war is ended. The challenge of reconstruction is daunting. And the potential
contribution of science, from providing modern medicines and clean water
supplies, to helping rebuild faith in the multilateralism that lies at the core
of the United Nations — for example, through its efforts to forge an
international scientific consensus on threats such as HIV/AIDS and global
warming — is enormous.
But
if context is not everything, it is certainly important. Nothing would be worse
for the long-term stability of the region than for a US victory in Iraq to pave
the way for a rebuilding process in which Western interests in general, and US
interests in particular, are seen to dominate. Moving in that direction will
only exacerbate the tendencies that gave rise to the current conflict, and are
likely to fester under the surface long after it is over.
To
avoid this, reconstruction must be based around the concept of capacity
building. And part of this must include creating a basic capacity to produce the
science and technology that any nation requires to help secure its economic and
social development. It must also include the capacity of that nation to ensure
that science is put to the genuine service of its own people. Achieving this
will not remove the root causes of the current conflict, or those that may well
follow. But it will, hopefully, help to make the claims of those who inflame
such conflicts less convincing.
©
SciDev.Net 2003
**
This article has been taken with permission from www.scidev.net.
The original article may be found at: http://www.scidev.net/archives/editorial/comment57.html