Scientific Work and Society

How often do scientists stop and think about the social implications of their work? As a research student, Martha Crouch learned that scientists design and execute experiments because they are curious about the world. In her world of plant science, funds were obtained so that society's increasing population could be properly fed. Such wholesome motives meant that research botanists could be confident that their work would not be misused. These noble sentiments stayed with Martha Crouch for many years, during which time she came to lead a research team in plant molecular biology. It was an awareness of the food problems of Third World countries that made her rethink the wider implications of her work and conclude that all was not well.

Writing in New Internationalist (March 1991, 21), she says:

`Although I still believe that most botanists are good-hearted, nature-loving people, I now realise that we scientists have been blinded by a myth of neutrality and purity which enables us to ignore the consequences of our work. Botanical research is vital to the spread of western agriculture, which is as disruptive to social and ecological systems as any human practice yet devised, including war. This realisation caused me to quit research and seek other ways of acquiring and using knowledge.'

She had observed that high-yielding plants required costly fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. The multinationals supplying these products were the same corporations who were actively steering the plant research in specific directions. Whilst the western world was wealthy enough to engage in this high technology agriculture, the effect on Third World countries was disastrous. They had neither the economic systems to support such `agribusiness', nor environments where the high-yield crops could flourish.

The issue here is not whether we agree with Martha Crouch's decision to redirect her energies. Rather, it is to ask ourselves whether we are living up to our stewardship responsibilities in the lives God has given us. Concerns about the influences on scientific research, the `myth of neutrality', and the plight of the Third World are surely worthy of our attention. Christians are called to be salt and light in society, yet there are many zealous people who accuse us of `opting out' and turning a blind eye to burning issues of pollution, conservation, social and economic injustice, and the conduct of wealthy and powerful organisations. Unless we think deeply about these trends, we may become victims of our own naivety and fail to fulfil our responsibilities as the people of God. This is not to suggest that Christians jump on the `green' bandwagon, but that we react in a truly christian manner when we see oppression, the spoiling of God's world, and the exploitation of the weak.

David J. Tyler (1991)

******

Return to the Creation and the environment Page
Return to the BCS Home Page