Science as a political tool? Don’t even think about it!

“Forget about using science to achieve political goals; it doesn’t even work.”

Christopher Whitty

Christopher Whitty (Credit: LSHTM/Anne Koeber)

That was the stark message delivered by Chris Whitty (right), recently appointed head of research at the UK Department for International Development (DFID), to the two-day meeting taking place in London this week on “New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy“.

Whitty, a malaria specialist who was appointed in January (see UK’s DFID appoints research chief) and emphasised that he was speaking in a personal rather than an official capacity, delivered what he described as a “hymn of praise” for the role of science in international development.

He listed some of the “wonderful things” that science was capable of doing to help to mitigate the effects of poverty around the world, while adding that “it has been massively overlooked by those involved in international development for many years”.

But he was scornful of efforts to use scientific and technical assistance to achieve broader political goals such as increasing influence or even contributing to social stability, both of which he included among “less good reasons” to engage in science in developing countries.

“They are less good because they don’t work,” he said.

One idea he criticised was that training scientists was a valuable way of buying influence with a country’s scientific community. The historical record showed that highly trained scientists often left their countries of origin to continue their work overseas.

“Another idea is that science can promote social stability,” said Whitty. “The evidence is the reverse. Science can be a transformative influence. But transformation can lead to turbulence, which itself can lead to conflict.”

Even the idea that science should be promoted because it was an unalloyed good had its problems. “This is clearly not correct. For example, there is some good south-south collaboration on nuclear issues that does not bring joy to the rest of the world.” No names were mentioned; but no names were needed.

The reason for engaging in science in developing countries should have a single, clear, purpose, he suggested: “to transform the lives of the poor”. A simple enough message. But one that placed a large question mark over the desirability of seeking to use science for diplomatic ends, particularly in the context of relationships with the developing world.

David Dickson, SciDev.Net.

2 Responses to Science as a political tool? Don’t even think about it!

  1. Kimone says:

    The implications and assumptions in this message is very obvious. It is also very ridiculous and selfish. Politics is politics, and politicians will always and forever utilize the best way they see possible to enhance popularity. It does not take away from the fact that they can still do right to the people, if they choose to. What is evident in this speech, is the implanted mentality that politics is solely geared on achieving political goals. Furthermore, to assume or suggest that it is wrong to do right in trying to achieve ones’ goal…Is that what you are implying David Dickson? A goal that once you are involved in politics you will always try to meet – and as you stated, “political goals”-. What is so wrong in trying to achieve it the right way?

  2. Kimone says:

    Am sorry, that was meant for Chris Whitty.

    Thank you

Comments closed. Read our blogs at

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: