The double helix of science and democracy
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Put those dynamics together and one of America's greatest legacies — our ability to produce knowledge that leads to material progress — feels shakier than ever.
Advertisement
So Globe Ideas and the president of the Museum of Science, Tim Ritchie, asked Danielle Allen, director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation at the Harvard Kennedy School, and David Kaiser, an MIT professor of physics and the history of science,
Edited excerpts of the discussion follow here.
Tim Ritchie
: I think we all believe that if humanity is going to rise up to the big challenges we face, we have to have thriving science. But if we're going to have science bend itself toward goodness, we have to have good societies built by democracy, by people who know what is best for themselves and their communities.
David Kaiser
: I don't find it very helpful to consider science and democracy as separated spheres — 'Keep your politics out of my science' or vice versa. I don't know what that means. If science must necessarily be done by groups of people, then of course we're social and political beings and that should be a source of strength, not a source to run from. One of the roles for politics, among many, is resource allocation. How do members of a society come to agree on how to distribute resources among worthy causes? Science, which needs a lot of resources,
has
to be political. We have to make the case in a persuasive way about why this kind of activity is worthy of support and hopefully not subject to the turmoil of election cycles. Making a persuasive case — not as if support is our birthright or should happen just because we said so — is one of our most important responsibilities among many. This requires sustained political engagement.
Advertisement
MIT's David Kaiser at the Science and Democracy event on Jan. 9, cosponsored by the Museum of Science and Globe Ideas.
Studio Nouveau
Danielle Allen
: Oftentimes we think that politics is all about material goods, resource allocation and the like. I want to say it's actually about something more fundamental. It's about human dignity, and human dignity resides in the capacity of people to be the authors of their lives.
My school of democracy was my family's dinner table. I had extended family who were super civically engaged, across the political spectrum. There was this one incredible year in my youth, 1992, when both my aunt and my dad were running for office in California. She was running for Congress from the far left. My dad was running for US Senate as a Reagan Republican. So we had amazing dinner table conversations. My dad would argue for market liberties and for civic virtues, and my aunt would argue for public sector investment in every segment of society and experiments in living. And as I watched them, I finally realized that there were two things that they were sharing. One was just this clarity of purpose: They were both seeking empowerment for themselves, for their families, for their communities. Then they were having this massive argument about how to unlock human potential, how to convert empowerment into well-being. But while they had that argument, they never ever broke the bonds of love, however vehement they were in their positions.
Advertisement
I think this relates to science in that you can have debates that are really intensely felt, but you have to bring with that a willingness to use these shared decision-making mechanisms — the votes, the elections, the institutions — to yield a result that you're going to live by even if you don't perfectly love it, but you're going to come back to the conversation again the next time. In science, too, people will win debates at certain points in time, but that doesn't actually end the conversation. We think of science as this accumulation of discoveries, but actually even Einstein is having his theory of relativity be modified by contemporary work of all kinds.
I think democracy has a special relationship to science because both are forms of human social organization that respect human potential. That's the point of the synergy. And because of that core shared commitment, there is a way in which democracy and science can flourish better together.
Harvard's Danielle Allen at the Science and Democracy event on Jan. 9, cosponsored by the Museum of Science and Globe Ideas.
Studio Nouveau
Ritchie
: Where are we telling the stories of awesome and wonderful things in science? Whether it's on YouTube or TikTok — or Twitch or Rumble for that matter — people are getting their science and their view of politics online. Should Danielle Allen and David Kaiser be mixing it up with Joe Rogan? Should your smart colleagues be going to where people are on social media and be more robust and more brave out there?
Advertisement
Allen
: Yes, for sure. We should be taking stories to where people are and sharing the wonder. I think there is so much good to share in the work of universities and the work of science. And I think the hard question is really how to support people in doing that. It's not necessarily the muscle that one develops after years in the lab or years in the archive and the like. There was the 19th-century habit of
Ritchie
: Let's go on the road and make science great again?
Allen
: Yes, yes. I will say yes to that.
Ritchie
: An audience member online is asking about the COVID vaccine, a fascinating example of democracy and science. A lot of funding there, lots of information, and lots of mistakes. What have you learned from the race to find a COVID vaccine and this relationship between democracy and funding and science?
Advertisement
Kaiser
: I'll give one: How do we live under uncertainty? Not just live under it as individual thinking people, but how do we communicate it? How do we try to formulate public policies that will affect lots and lots of people without knowing everything we'd want to know up front? That's the world we live in, that's our condition. And how do we communicate a kind of intellectual modesty in the face of grand challenges? 'We don't know everything. We have compelling reasons why we're going to try this now.' That's different from 'Back off. The scientists are in town.'
Allen
: Politics is fundamentally about value judgments and about choosing a direction collectively. Science can't answer those questions. And so in that regard, I do think it matters that science and scientists enter into those decision-making moments precisely with that spirit of humility. 'No, we don't necessarily have the answer. What we do have is a lot of information about the choices, the trade-offs, the stakes of the different choices, and so forth.' I don't think we got that balance right in the time of COVID.
Audience member
: My question is about corporations. They provide lots of the funds, trained personnel, and time to do science. Are there ways that you think we should change how corporations are regulated or operated to be better for science and democracy?
Allen
: I think the COVID moment gave us a beautiful example of how in principle the public sector, the commercial private sector, and civil society can work together.
We couldn't have had those vaccines if there hadn't been decades of public sector democracy investment in bench science, the discovery of mRNA. But bench science alone can't get you to unlock the full human good of a discovery. You need the capital that a Moderna or Pfizer has to scale up something like a vaccine. But those vaccines weren't getting into people's arms unless people trusted the vaccine. And here in Massachusetts that was a civil society effort — the Black Boston COVID collaborative, the Western Mass. COVID coalition. The point being you need public sector investment in science, you need corporations, and then you need civil society.
And the hard question is: How can you have a regulatory or governance structure that keeps corporations serving the public, not converting everything that's public into something that's just extracted for private good? We are without any question living through a moment of real challenge around the question of what a corporation is, how it operates and the like, and whether or not democracies are masters of corporations or vice versa. That is the political question of the next decade, and I think the stakes are very high.
Audience member
: In a world where anyone can self-publish and information is shared through a multitude of modalities, is there a role for either a democratic institution or a private institution or otherwise to really ensure that anything that's labeled as science or fact is actually true?
Kaiser
: There's a fundamental First Amendment right in our country to be able to say what one wants within, obviously, some limits. If someone has a contrarian view about quantum entanglement — and many do, my inbox confirms that every day — I don't think there's any reason to block them from being able to share those ideas. One thing we can try to do is just do more of it ourselves. Flood the market. Let's go all in.
If we know there are remarkably well-organized, often well-funded disinformation campaigns, I think saying, 'How dare you?' is an appropriate first reaction. The second reaction is, 'Well, that's a political campaign. We're living in a political world. What's our political campaign going to be?' I think it should be: Let's do more work getting things that we trust out there and explain why we trust it, as opposed to 'How dare you! Take it down. Censor that.' We don't need more martyr complexes out there.
Brian Bergstein is the editor of the Globe Ideas section. He can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Immigration raids leave crops unharvested, California farms at risk
By Tim Reid, Pilar Olivares and Leah Douglas OXNARD, California (Reuters) -Lisa Tate is a sixth-generation farmer in Ventura County, California, an area that produces billions of dollars worth of fruit and vegetables each year, much of it hand-picked by immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Tate knows the farms around her well. And she says she can see with her own eyes how raids carried out by agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the area's fields earlier this month, part of President Donald Trump's migration crackdown, have frightened off workers. "In the fields, I would say 70% of the workers are gone," she said in an interview. "If 70% of your workforce doesn't show up, 70% of your crop doesn't get picked and can go bad in one day. Most Americans don't want to do this work. Most farmers here are barely breaking even. I fear this has created a tipping point where many will go bust." In the vast agricultural lands north of Los Angeles, stretching from Ventura County into the state's central valley, two farmers, two field supervisors and four immigrant farmworkers told Reuters this month that the ICE raids have led a majority of workers to stop showing up. That means crops are not being picked and fruit and vegetables are rotting at peak harvest time, they said. One Mexican farm supervisor, who asked not to be named, was overseeing a field being prepared for planting strawberries last week. Usually he would have 300 workers, he said. On this day he had just 80. Another supervisor at a different farm said he usually has 80 workers in a field, but today just 17. BAD FOR BUSINESS Most economists and politicians acknowledge that many of America's agricultural workers are in the country illegally, but say a sharp reduction in their numbers could have devastating impacts on the food supply chain and farm-belt economies. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said an estimated 80% of farmworkers in the U.S. were foreign-born, with nearly half of them in the country illegally. Losing them will cause price hikes for consumers, he said. "This is bad for supply chains, bad for the agricultural industry," Holtz-Eakin said. Over a third of U.S. vegetables and over three-quarters of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The state's farms and ranches generated nearly $60 billion in agricultural sales in 2023. Of the four immigrant farmworkers Reuters spoke to, two are in the country illegally. These two spoke on the condition of anonymity, out of fear of being arrested by ICE. One, aged 54, has worked in U.S. agricultural fields for 30 years and has a wife and children in the country. He said most of his colleagues have stopped showing up for work. "If they show up to work, they don't know if they will ever see their family again," he said. The other worker in the country illegally told Reuters, "Basically, we wake up in the morning scared. We worry about the sun, the heat, and now a much bigger problem - many not returning home. I try not to get into trouble on the street. Now, whoever gets arrested for any reason gets deported." To be sure, some farmworker community groups said many workers were still returning to the fields, despite the raids, out of economic necessity. The days following a raid may see decreased attendance in the field, but the workers soon return because they have no other sources of income, five groups told Reuters. Workers are also taking other steps to reduce their exposure to immigration agents, like carpooling with people with legal status to work or sending U.S. citizen children to the grocery store, the groups said. ICE CHILL Trump conceded in a post on his Truth Social account this month that ICE raids on farm workers - and also hotel workers - were "taking very good, long-time workers away" from those sectors, "with those jobs being almost impossible to replace." Trump later told reporters, "Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers." He added, "They're not citizens, but they've turned out to be great." He pledged to issue an order to address the impact, but no policy change has yet been enacted. Trump has always stood up for farmers, said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly in response to a request for comment on the impact of the ICE raids to farms. "He will continue to strengthen our agricultural industry and boost exports while keeping his promise to enforce our immigration laws," she said. Bernard Yaros, Lead U.S. Economist at Oxford Economics, a nonpartisan global economics advisory firm, said in a report published on June 26 that native-born workers tend not to fill the void left by immigrant workers who have left. "Unauthorized immigrants tend to work in different occupations than those who are native-born," he said. ICE operations in California's farmland were scaring even those who are authorized, said Greg Tesch, who runs a farm in central California. "Nobody feels safe when they hear the word ICE, even the documented people. We know that the neighborhood is full of a combination of those with and without documents," Tesch said. "If things are ripe, such as our neighbors have bell peppers here, (if) they don't harvest within two or three days, the crop is sunburned or over mature," said Tesch. "We need the labor."
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Republicans are in a sprint on Trump's big bill after a weekend of setbacks
WASHINGTON (AP) — After a weekend of setbacks, the Senate will try to sprint ahead Monday on President Donald Trump's big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts despite a series of challenges, including the sudden announcement from one GOP senator that he won't run for reelection after opposing the package over its Medicaid health care cuts. An all-night session to consider an endless stream of proposed amendments to the package, in what's called a vote-a-rama, was abruptly postponed, and it's now scheduled to launch as soon as the Senate gavels open. With Democrats united against the Republican president's legislation and eagerly lined up to challenge it, the voting could take all day. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the 'hardest choices' for Republicans are still to come. His side plans to bring 'amendment after amendment after amendment to the floor, so Republicans can defend their billionaire tax cuts and so they can try to explain their massive cuts to Medicaid to people back home.' The hours ahead will be pivotal for the Republicans, who have control of the Congress and are racing against Trump's Fourth of July deadline to wrap up work. The 940-page 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' as it is now formally titled, has consumed the Congress as its shared priority with the president, with no room politically to fail, even as not all Republicans are on board. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law. It also said the package would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the decade. House Speaker Mike Johnson's leadership team has recalled lawmakers back to Washington for voting in the House as soon as Wednesday, if the legislation can first clear the Senate. But the outcome remains uncertain, especially after a weekend of work in the Senate that brought less visible progress on securing enough Republican support, over Democratic opposition, for passage. Few Republicans appear fully satisfied as the final package emerges. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced Sunday he would not seek reelection after Trump badgered him over his opposition to the package, said he has the same goals as Trump, cutting taxes and spending. But Tillis said this package is a betrayal of the president's promises not to kick people off health care, especially if rural hospitals close. 'We could take the time to get this right,' he thundered. At the same time, some loosely aligned conservative Senate Republicans — Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming — have pushed for steeper cuts, particularly to health care, drawing their own warning from Trump. 'Don't go too crazy!' the president posted on social media. 'REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected.' GOP leaders barely secured enough support to muscle the legislation past a procedural Saturday night hurdle in a tense scene. A handful of Republican holdouts revolted, and it took phone calls from Trump and a visit from Vice President JD Vance to keep it on track. As Saturday's vote tally teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted 'yes.' Several provisions in the package including a higher tax deduction for native whalers and potential waivers from food stamps or Medicaid changes are being called the 'Polar Payoff' designed for her state. But some were found to be out of compliance with the rules by the Senate parliamentarian. All told, the Senate bill includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts, making permanent Trump's 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips. The Senate package would roll back billions of dollars in green energy tax credits that Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide and impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements, making sign-up eligibility more stringent and changing federal reimbursements to states. Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants. Unable to stop the march toward passage, the Democrats as the minority party in Congress are using the tools at their disposal to delay and drag out the process. Democrats forced a full reading of the text, which took 16 hours. Then Democratic senators took over Sunday's debate, filling the chamber with speeches, while Republicans largely stood aside. 'Reckless and irresponsible,' said Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan. 'A gift to the billionaire class,' said Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. 'Follow what the Bible teaches us: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,' said Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., as Sunday's debate pushed past midnight. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, raised particular concern about the accounting method being used by the Republicans, which says the tax breaks from Trump's first term are now 'current policy' and the cost of extending them should not be counted toward deficits. 'In my 33 years here in the United States Senate, things have never — never — worked this way,' said Murray, the longest-serving Democrat on the Budget Committee. She said that kind of 'magic math' won't fly with Americans trying to balance their own household books. 'Go back home,' she said, 'and try that game with your constituents.' ___ Associated Press writers Ali Swenson, Fatima Hussein and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
Bloomberg
34 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Tax Bill Hits Senate, Canada Drops Tech Tax
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is rushing to meet President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline for pushing through his massive tax and spending bill, but first he has to work through a list of approximately eight Republican senators who have expressed opposition to portions of it. Within the next two days, he needs to find a way to appease most of them. Canada has withdrawn its digital services tax on technology companies such as Meta and Alphabet in a move to restart trade talks with the US. The Opening Trade has everything you need to know as markets open across Europe. With analysis you won't find anywhere else, we break down the biggest stories of the day and speak to top guests who have skin in the game. Hosted by Guy Johnson, Tom Mackenzie and Valerie Tytel. (Source: Bloomberg)
