Politicians, not scientists, should have last word

Among the equipment aboard China's Chang'e-4 lunar probe as it heads to the far side of the moon is scientific apparatus developed by the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Saudi Arabia.

Communication will be assured via ground stations not only in China but as far separated as Namibia and Argentina.

At a time when Earth-bound politicians are embroiled in arguments about trade, climate change and a host of regional disputes, the space mission is a timely reminder that science thrives through international cooperation.

Although the 20th century space race between the US and the Soviet Union was partly spurred by their geopolitical rivalry, subsequent advances have depended heavily on scientists from different countries working together.

The International Space Station - the clue is in the name - would not have been feasible without the participation of a range of international players, led by the space agencies of the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada.

ISS astronauts orbiting 400 kilometers above the earth are dependent on their international colleagues to an extent that must make the squabbles that divide their politicians down below seem petty and irrelevant.

In other areas, such as genome research and the study of climate change, international cooperation has been vital to progress.

The project launched in 1990 to map the human genome was a joint one by scientists around the world, with the process of gene sequencing carried out in a score of research centers in the US, United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, Spain and China. International cooperation ensured that the project, which marks a leap forward toward a better understanding of disease, was completed in just 13 years.

When it comes to climate change, experts from around the world have overwhelmingly concluded that carbon emissions are contributing to global warming.

Their near unanimous scientific consensus contrasts with the continuing debates between politicians over who is to blame and what to do about it. US President Donald Trump has rejected the consensus and accused the scientists of having a political agenda.

Science is by definition fact-based. Scientists reach their conclusions via experimentation that cannot be challenged by the dictates of politics or by contemporary prejudices. Otherwise it would not be science.

It might be tempting, then, to conclude that the world would be a better and more cooperative place if it were run by scientists rather than guided by the instincts of sometimes ill-informed politicians.

The problem, however, is that science is essentially amoral. It reveals what is possible rather than what is beneficial. Scientists created nuclear weapons as well as penicillin. As parts of the world's oceans become choked with man-made waste, even the invention of plastics must now be regarded as a curse as much as a blessing.

Society at large and politicians in particular must continue to have a role in deciding what scientific possibilities are developed and which should be set aside.

Chinese researcher He Jiankui triggered an ethical red flag over his claim to have modified a gene of twin female embryos. The subsequent outcry has prompted Chinese government agencies to launch an investigation into his work. The essence of the debate is that because science can do something new, that does not mean it should.

Even the most promising scientific advances can have their downside. Internet technology has created a forum for people around the world to communicate with each other but it has also prompted the growth of destabilizing infowars and fake news.

Artificial intelligence promises to do away with the drudgery of many current routine tasks. But it also has the potential to destroy jobs and put robots in charge.

The conclusion must be that politicians and regulators, at local and international levels, should still have the last word on how science is exploited for the benefit of all. It might be worthwhile, however, if those same politicians had a sufficient grounding in the scientific method to inform their decisions.

The author is a senior media consultant for China Daily. Contact the writer at editor@mail.chinadailyuk.com

(China Daily Africa Weekly 12/14/2018 page12)