When politics reaches out to science, does science benefit? The answer is negative
The article was published in Galileo magazine, July 1998. pp. 70-76.
"Everything that we value today on earth - science and art, technology and inventions - is the creative product of a few people, and probably originally of one race. The existence of the entire culture now depends on them. If they become extinct, then the beauty on earth will be buried with them.” With these words, Adolf Hitler expressed his firm opinion on human creation in his well-known book, Mein Kampf. Adolf Hitler also said and did, and "purged" the academic institutions under his rule from non-Aryan scientists. Did science in Germany soar to new heights during Hitler's reign, when it became more "Aryan" than before? Did it really develop and be a "light to the Gentiles", as Hitler envisioned? A new study sheds a mesmerizing light on this period. This research was done by Ute Deichmann, as a doctoral thesis, under the guidance of his son Benno Muller-Hill. Needless to say, both are German. This study was published as a book in 1992, and was recently translated into English. Uta is originally a biologist, and her book gives a picture of only one field, the science of biology. At the same time, precisely this field is of great importance for understanding the involvement of science and politics, because of the great closeness that the science of biology has, at least apparently, to the theory of race.
Naturally, while reading Deichman's book, I was mainly interested in the actions of researchers in the fields of animal behavior during that murky period. For me, reading this book became a thrilling journey to the north of people I knew from their publications, research and books. Except for random and unfounded rumors, I knew nothing about their events during this period, and some of the things were revealed for the first time in Deichmann's book. My reading records and my professional comments therefore refer mainly to three people. In 1973, almost thirty years after the end of World War II, the three of them together received the Nobel Prize in Biology for their research in the field of ethology (animal behavior). All three were and lived in Europe under the rule of the Nazi Party, and in such a different way from each other. The three are Karl von Frisch, a German researcher best known for discovering the language of the honeybee dance; Konrad Lorenz, an Austrian of German origin known for his ethological studies, and whose two most popular books were published in Hebrew ("King Solomon's Ring" and "The Seemingly Evil" - two charming, fascinating and humorous books); and Nico Tinbergen, a well-known Dutch researcher who made a decisive contribution to the development of ethology.
But before we get to these three researchers, we will examine the answer to the main question: when politics reaches out to science, does science benefit? Deichman's unequivocal answer is: no. On the contrary. German biological science was lagging behind under Nazi rule, and due to the isolation imposed on it later, remained lagging behind for a long time afterwards. What, then, was the nature of political involvement in science under Nazi rule? He actually had two faces. The blatant, visible aspect, which began since the Nazis came to power in 1933, was the removal of the Jews from the academic establishment. Out of 337 biologists, 45 were expelled, of which 30 were Jews. The rest were dismissed for other reasons, mainly political. Their place was taken, of course, by others. The less visible aspect was the political involvement. Of all the biology researchers who remained during the Nazi period in "Greater Germany" (including Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia) in 1933-1945, 60% were members of the Nazi Party. A statistical examination revealed that party membership did not improve their situation in receiving research grants. That is, membership in the party was either out of faith in the way, or out of the hidden influence of socio-political pressure, as well as social-academic pressure (from colleagues; see below how they tried to pressure Von Frisch). However, the facts show that even if the gain in research grants as a result of political intervention was rare, there were cases in which researchers were given an advantage in getting jobs, or keeping them, with the help of political aid, because of their proximity to the Nazi idea (see below how Lorenz progressed). This created, mainly in the field of biology, consciously or unconsciously, mobilized studies whose aim is to satisfy the patron more than to test scientific truths.
There was no lack of money
German scientists who were asked, after 1945, the reason for their failure to carry out scientific research at a high level despite being the best researchers, answered that the reason lies mainly in the lack of financial support for scientific research. Uta Deichmann's findings indicate that the reality was the opposite: in the years 1932-1939 there was a ten-fold increase in research grants in the field of biology, and it remained at this level until 1945. Deichmann indicates that the reason for the failure of biological research during this period is also not prominently due to the fact that the best researchers (Jews and others) had to leave. There were good researchers who left and there were also good researchers who filled their place. There was indeed a certain isolation of the German researchers from other researchers due to the tendency of the Germans to publish in German only, and it is possible that this had some effect on scientific research in Germany. But my impression from reading the book is that the same hidden factor, political-social environmental pressure, created, consciously or unconsciously, tendencies for biological research with a certain direction, which corresponds to the party's ideology or needs. The result is a barrier to freedom of thought and the necessary means for the advancement of science.
I must point out, however, that in Nazi Germany there was not the same degree of crude coercion of scientific opinions that comes to mind, in similar contexts, as there was a little later in the Soviet USSR. There, in 1948, Lysenko, an Atad from the land of the Atads, rose to prominence, and imposed on the scientists his Lamarckian views (that acquired traits are inherited, or, in other words: the effort and specialization you have acquired in your life gives you results in improving the hereditary disposition and skills of your offspring). As a result, the Russian scientists had to rewrite their studies, and admit in writing that genetics is a mistake, and that it has no part in evolution. Those who did not do so, disappeared to Siberia, or off the face of the earth. The result: Russian biological research lagged for many years behind that of the West. In my field, of animal behavior studies, it is abundantly clear that Russian science is still far from recovering from this period. Compared to Lysenko's time in Russia, in Nazi Germany scientists were expelled and/or destroyed in gas chambers because of their origin, or their political opinions, but not according to their scientific opinions.
Karl von Frisch, a Jewish eighth
Karl von Frisch, one of the three who later won the Nobel Prize for their contribution to the study of ethology, was officially declared during Hitler's reign, after an investigation, and after his failure to provide certificates proving the Harry ancestry of his maternal grandmother, as "mixed", or rather as " An eighth is Jewish." Despite this, he was allowed to continue working at the university as before. Von Frisch is portrayed by Deicher as a brave man who maintains his dignity and independence. As far as this was possible, he continued to employ Jews as his assistants and students, and to help other persecuted people, despite his difficulties due to his origin. Needless to say, von Frisch was not a member of the National Socialist Party. Von Frisch was described by the student newspaper as a cold person who deals only in his field, with no interest in Germany and its survival. The speaker of the lecturers unsuccessfully tried to remove him from the academic system. Von Frisch was mainly persecuted by another researcher, a botanist, Ernst Bergdolt, a member of the National Socialist Party since 1922. In a letter to the German authorities, Bergdolt accused von Frisch of "un-German" research (that is, of not elevating race theory - an interesting accusation that suggests that there were indeed political trends for scientific studies), in political corruption and favoritism of Jews. Bergoldt even went to the trouble of sending a document indicating that von Frisch is not "one-eighth Jewish" but "one-quarter Jewish". Following this letter, Von Frisch was repeatedly questioned about his origins, and in 1941 he was indeed declared one-quarter Jewish. Following this announcement, according to German law, von Frisch had to leave his academic chair.
Here von Frisch was helped by his supporters in the academy. The first of these was Hans Spemann, a retired professor of zoology and winner of the Nobel Prize in 1935. His letter and other letters that indicated the importance of von Frisch's research and his academic excellence, as well as indirect support from the rector of the university, resulted in him receiving special permission to remain in his post. This was also helped by support from an unknown source that allowed von Frisch to publish an article in the newspaper "The Reich" near those events. This article allowed him to present to the non-professional audience the variety of research done under his responsibility. The thing that characterizes the article is many repetitions of the multiple importance of these studies for the economy and food policy of Germany. In order to testify about the importance of the research, von Frisch brought a photograph of a research partner in an officer's uniform in the German army, making special mention of the fact that the army released him due to the importance of this research. Another photo shows another colleague of his while noting the fact that she is completing "an important task in the four-year research program during the leave she received from anti-aircraft warning duties." That is, Von Frisch also had to pay his political taxes to stay in his job, considering his Jewish origin.
All of this was helped by the fact that von Frisch was indeed an excellent researcher, and that his research activity on the honey bee did indeed have an important economic impact. In 1940, a severe intestinal disease of the honey bee caused by a single-celled parasite spread in Europe, and in 1941 the disease wiped out hundreds of thousands of hives. The effect of this fact on the economy was not only a reduction in the production of honey, but also a large decrease in the production of fruits and vegetables that were pollinated by honey bees. Von Frisch was engaged in research on a large scale, which would not end until the end of the war. These studies also led him, according to his words, to the study of scent trails, to a return to the study of the "language of the bees" and to new findings that pointed to the role of the dance of the bees in transmitting information about the place of concentration of flowers and their quality (findings that contributed to his winning the Nobel Prize).
Did Konrad Lorenz believe in the Nazi ideology?
Konrad Lorenz, the other co-winner of the Nobel Prize, is the most controversial figure in this whole affair. By all indications, Lorenz was a likable person, certainly a passionate researcher of animal behavior. Anyone who read his books could be impressed by the humor, enthusiasm and kindness woven into them. At the same time, even Himmler (and I apologize for the comparison) who sent so many people to their deaths, could not tolerate violent sports, and Hitler himself, after the suicide of his adopted sister, with whom he was desperately in love, refused to eat meat. So the well-known claim that a certain person is a good person because he "can't hurt a fly" cannot be a sweeping claim that indicates his character. That is why it is important to note that Konrad Lorenz, as likable a person as he is, was not dragged involuntarily into the Nazi Party. He believed in her ideological path.
Lorenz studied medicine, then psychology and zoology. He received his doctorate in 1933 (remember, this is the year Hitler came to power in Germany), and became an assistant to Ferdinand Hochstetter at the Anatomy Institute of the University of Vienna. Hochstetter allowed Lorenz to engage in his studies in ethology, as a side occupation. In 1935, Lorenz obtained his certification in animal anatomy and psychology. After Hochstetter's successors prevented him from continuing research in the field of ethology, Lorenz resigned and worked in Antberg, his birthplace, without salary, studying the behavior of tilapias (fish) and birds.
In this situation, in Austria, due to the strong influence of the Catholic Church, Lorenz had no chance of financial support, due to the clear evolutionary orientation of his comparative studies in the behavior of different animals. The church, of course, saw evolutionary ideas as heresy. In fact, this is the first political intervention in Lorenz's research directions. In this case, Lorenz preferred to maintain the purity of his research, even if he had to, as a result, give up his salary.
His application for a grant from the German Research Society (DFG), submitted in 1937, was rejected despite an excellent opinion by at least one of the referees. The research was intended to examine the behavioral patterns of the gray goose, and to provide proof of the existence of hereditary and independent behavioral patterns, similar to the existence of other organic organs (Lorenz's goal was, ultimately, to compare these patterns between different species, in order to learn about the evolutionary relationship between them). The decision to reject the request from the German Foundation was made "on the basis of a low assessment... according to which questions were raised mainly regarding the political reference and origin of Dr. Konrad Lorenz" (Deichmann points out that while starting in 1934 the Aryan origin was necessary to receive a research grant from the German Foundation, the political attribution was usually not influenced the receipt of research grants; apparently, Deichmann comments, the treatment of Austrians, before the union with Germany in 1938, was different). This request was sent again in December of the same year, together with letters of recommendation attesting to Lorenz's origin and political affiliation, written by his colleagues. A summary of these letters states that "all opinions from Austria are unanimous that Lorenz's political approach is impeccable in every sense. He is not politically active, but in Austria he never hid his opinion that he agrees with the National Socialist Party... Everything is fine with his Harry origin as well." Another letter was sent by his former employer, Hochstetter: "Since I could trust him completely, I discussed everything with him, including, often, current political matters. Despite the fact that neither of us belonged to any party, we were both very interested in these questions. We were united in our opinions in our strong disapproval of clericalism and everything related to it. We were also of the same opinion that our fate as Germans in Austria is deeply connected with the fate of Germans under the rule of the Reich..." This time Lorenz received his research grant.
Konrad Lorenz was asked, in an interview in 1988, about a year before his death, about his political involvement. His answer was: "Actually, I always avoided politics because I was busy with my affairs. I also shied away, in a very clumsy way, from a confrontation with the Nazis - I just didn't have the time for it. I blame myself for that. But, at the same time, if I had fulfilled my political duties, I would never have been able to complete the achievements for which I received the Nobel Prize."
Konrad Lorenz was not accurate, it turns out, to put it mildly. Deichmann traces Lorenz's connections with the Nazi Party: on June 28, 1938, shortly after it became legally possible in Austria, Lorenz joined the Nazi Party. In addition, he joined the party's office for racial policy matters, along with permission to give lectures. In fact, in 1939, he was scheduled to give a lecture in Leipzig accompanied by slides on "Regeneration and degeneration in humans and animals," a lecture that was canceled due to the outbreak of war.
Lorenz published his research on animal domestication in the professional zoological and psychological press (in German, of course), and even bothered to indicate their possible applications: "Exactly in the broad field of instinctive behavior [the field in which the main theoretical and experimental development was his, AH], one can compare Directly humans and animals... We can safely hazard a prediction that these studies will lead to results related to theoretical and practical achievements of race policy." In a publication in 1943, he writes: "...it can be claimed with almost certainty that all the manifestations of physiological and moral degeneration that caused the decline of civilized peoples, after they had achieved a level of civilization, are the same as those manifested in the domestication of animals."
inferior races
Don't let it be easy for you. I bothered and read parts of Hitler's book, Mein Kampf. Almost 20 years earlier, Hitler establishes, or perhaps I should say describes, his race theory, using very similar terms and concepts. Hitler repeatedly uses the concepts of physiological, cultural and moral degeneration in describing the danger inherent in the inferior races, and in the conflation of the Aryan race with other races. It must be remembered that Hitler did not conceive his race theory from a deep biological understanding, but on the contrary: he used examples from biology as a model to justify and explain his social theory.
Lorenz's studies on the effect of domestication on animal degeneration but emphasize this connection well. Lorenz was not the first to use studies on domestication to understand evolutionary processes, Darwin preceded him in a series of fundamental studies on domestication that he describes in his book "The Origin of Species". But see how deep the difference is: Darwin used domestication procedures to understand genetic flexibility, and to learn how animals adapt themselves to new conditions, by genetic changes. Lorenz, tried to learn about the degeneration that occurs during the domestication process. It should be emphasized here that despite Lorenz's innovations in the comparative study of behavior models, his understanding of the evolutionary processes themselves was extremely poor. His use of the term "degeneration" instead of "development" or "adaptation" is consistent with race theory, as described by Hitler, and not the processes of evolution as Darwin understood them at the time, or as we understand them today. It is difficult to avoid the disturbing thought that Lorenz's understanding of the processes of evolution, a scientist and zoologist, was influenced by the racial theory of Hitler, a politician and demagogue (Hitler does not describe the development of the Aryan race, but the degeneration of other races), or at least, that the understanding of both derives from a similar source, Probably the highly influential book of Oswald Spengler, a history teacher, called "The Decline of the West", which was published in 1920.
A psychological study on "mixed race" during the Holocaust
Hitler writes in his book that "all the great civilizations of the past perished only because their original creative race became extinct as a result of blood poisoning." He also details his view of what happens in intermarriage between the Aryan race and an inferior race, when the offspring of such parents, though more successful than the inferior race, are still inferior compared to the Aryan source. Deichman reveals hidden years in Lorenz's history, in which he walks this racist path. In 1941 he was drafted into the army and served as a military psychologist for about a year and a half, after which he worked as a neurophysiologist and psychiatrist in a reserve army hospital in Posen. At this time, he voluntarily participated, without any coercion, in a psychological study initiated by the German East European Foundation of the Reich, on "the psychological stability and character of German-Polish primary mixed people." The direction of this research clearly points to following Hitler's racist ideology. The process that led to the research was dividing the people in Posen into different groups according to their ethnic affiliation, in order to determine whether to be sent to Germany to work and "Germanize," that is, to become Germans, or to stay in Posen. Some of the people, those who fit the research framework and were members of mixed marriages, were the spouses of this study. The Jews who were in Posen were sent away, of course, as part of the racial cleansing process (Deichmann does not specify where). This study was published as a book by the person who coordinated the study, Rudolf Hippius, and indicates that "real damage in the creation of hybrid populations means... significant spoilage in practical and cultural life."
I will not bore you with the many additional details that Deichmann provides about Lorenz's activities and opinions, which correspond to those of race theory, and expressions in his writings in the scientific literature such as "inferior human-social material" and "extinction of morally inferiors" (he does not specify who and how). Despite all this, Lorenz was apparently not a war criminal, although the research on the hybrids in Posen undoubtedly brought him a very significant step closer to that. Neither Lorenz himself, nor others revealed this period in his life, until Deichmann's research. In a radio interview in the early XNUMXs, Lorenz was asked if he had to make any compromises during National Socialism. Lorenz replied, "I even hoped that National Socialism would bring something good, that is, in relation to a full biological evaluation of man, against domestication." That the people meant 'murder', when they talked about 'deforestation' or 'selection', I really didn't believe that at the time. So naive, so stupid, so innocent - call it whatever you want, that's how I was then." "When will it become clear to you?" was asked "Then I was already a soldier," Lorenz replied. "Then I saw for the first time in Posen transports, not of Jews, but of Gypsies. So they did cut the hairs on my head." Was there indeed an abysmal innocence of Lorenz at the time of the act, or is it a question of innocence after it? The certain contradiction between this interview and the later interview, which was quoted above, probably indicates something from both.
Towards the end of the war, Lorenz was sent as a psychologist to the Russian front, where he was captured by the Russians in 1944. While there, Lorenz served as a doctor in the POW camp, and even managed to write a draft of a book, 'The Backside of the Mirror', which deals with the theory of consciousness. He published this book after he was released in 1948.
The third partner in winning the Nobel Prize in 1973 was Nico Tinbergen, a Dutchman. Deichman cites a letter that Tinbergen sent after the war, June 1945, to her colleague in the United States, in which he describes his events, and reveals future plans for the restoration of ethological research. In the first year of German rule, Tinbergen writes, the Germans left them to their own devices. Then they began to outlaw the Jews, and to influence the schools and teaching. "The influence grew and grew until very quickly we felt we had to harden our positions, and resist as much as possible. Our university happened to be the first Dutch university to be attacked by the Germans as a group, and the first to refuse to surrender. The Germans wanted to cleanse our unit of Jews and Nazi opponents, and intended to shoot to death one professor, and then another, step by step, based on completely irrelevant claims. Very quickly we saw that there was no other way before us but to refuse to serve in a government controlled by the Germans, and immediately after the university was closed by the Germans... 60 of our professors, including myself, abandoned our entire position. These were the protest and the steps we took in order to prevent the Germans from turning our university into a Nazi one by selectively expelling some of us, to replace them with others, and leaving the rest as a "flag" to decorate the intended Nazi university. As a result, we were captured (that is, about 20 of the so-called leaders of the protest) and placed in a camp as hostages, along with about 1300 other patriots, and international detainees."
Tinbergen also adds that in 1942 there were two executions of small groups of hostages, but after that they lived in the concentration camp more or less without risk, although they and their families were in conditions of uncertainty. Some of his colleagues were released in 1943, but Tinbergen himself was held in custody until the fall of 1944, and after a short period, but one that left a mark on him, in a concentration camp, he was released. In total, Tinbergen was detained for about two years. After his reunification with his family, Tinbergen dealt with his household affairs, caring for war victims, and spying for the Dutch underground military forces, a period in which he had to hide frequently to avoid being caught again by the Germans.
The continuation of Tinbergen's letter deals with reporting on colleagues, and plans for the restoration of the science of ethology in Europe, and international cooperation. His reference to Konrad Lorenz is particularly interesting. "I know nothing about my German colleagues. Lorenz was in the army, the department of the Heerespsychologie, starting in 1941. He was quite infected with Nazism, although I always appreciated him as an honest man and a good guy. But it is impossible for me to renew contact with him, or with colleagues from his country, that is, psychologically impossible. The wounds in our souls must heal, and this takes time." Apparently he knew nothing about Lorenz's arrest by the Russians. Speaking about plans for a future gathering, Tinbergen adds his opinion about other German colleagues: "For example, the SS man Neithammer will never be accepted by any of us, or Werner Fischel. But Stresemann, Rench, Von Frisch [I already wrote about him above, A.H.], and I hope Laven too, are our people. Personally, I would be sorry if Lorenz or Koehler were denounced."
After Lorenz's return from captivity, he once again had trouble getting a job in Austria, not so much because of his Nazi past as because of his "Darwinist" research. Here von Frisch came to his aid prominently, but without success. Only in 1951 did Lorenz get a research position in Germany. From then on, despite his political past, Lorenz won high international recognition both as a person and as a scientist. The support of Tinbergen and von Frisch was important for this success, as well as for Lorenz receiving, together with them, his Nobel Prize despite racist-political publications that are not ambiguous, which he wrote in the past.
Tinbergen's name, outside the world of biology, is less well known than Konrad Lorenz's. The reason probably lies in Lorenz's popular books (Tinbergen's books are more technical), and perhaps also in his publications in the field of psychology (Lorenz's lack of understanding of the process of natural selection is less clear to researchers in this field). At the same time, in my estimation, Tinbergen's contribution to the study of ethology is just as important as Lorenz's, both in the scope of his studies, and in their scientific professionalism, and certainly in the number of students he trained (Tinbergen later moved to the University of Oxford in England, which helped his influence on the immediate connections with other researchers and with students). This makes a mockery of Lorenz's claim that he was engaged in a political protest (which he never intended to engage in), he had no leisure to engage in the research for which he received a Nobel Prize. A large part of the research in which Lorenz engaged in the years 1941-1945 were, as mentioned above, research with a political aspect or influence, and it was not thanks to these researches that he received the Nobel Prize, but in spite of his involvement in them.
Political influences on science in Israel
I deliberately did not deal with war criminals here. But reading about such events undoubtedly makes one think about the scientist as a person and as a researcher under such highly significant political events. It seems that in certain fields, at least, political influences on scientific research are almost inevitable, but their strength depends on the scientists on the one hand, and on the political conditions on the other hand. In free countries and in a state of peace and economic stabilization, their influence is, for the most part, small and negligible. Direct and indirect intervention becomes more significant when the area in question has a strong impact on political and economic aspects. Conditions of social or national conflict are a fertile ground for creating such conditions. Whether we like it or not, both are strongly present in the State of Israel. Did these create political effects on scientific research in Israel?
In the state of science in Israel, which is relatively good, I find it hard to believe that there can exist in Israel, consistently, in any field, a phenomenon of deliberate distortion of research as a result of political influences. In contrast, economic effects on research directions are probably an everyday thing. It is enough to mention agricultural research, nature conservation research or medical research, in which the general trends in research are not determined solely by the inclinations of the researcher's heart, but also, and sometimes mainly, by the economic tendencies that encourage certain researches, at the expense of others, on according to public and economic needs. Also in archaeology, for example, sites from certain periods will be more attractive to the general public than from other periods, either because of political inclinations or because a certain type of remains, and especially of large and concentrated cities, is easier to present as a large tourist site than small sites that are distant from each other. The selection of the excavation sites, as well as the opening of archaeological sites to the public, are also subject to political influences due to the important external influence that the millions of tourists who visit the archaeological sites have, and carry the experiences to their countries of origin.
danger to researchers
Archaeological studies in Israel can be subject to prominent political influences also because they can shed light on the origin of modern monotheism, and above all, what is relevant to internal politics, on the origin of the ancient Hebrews and Judaism. By chance I recently came across a book that brings the words of archaeologists at a conference held in 1991, called: The rise of Ancient Israel. As a person who is a layman on this subject, it was surprising to me to see the unanimity of opinion of archaeologists, Americans and Israelis, almost all of them Jewish, in the conclusion that the ancient Hebrews did not come from Egypt at all but gradually invaded the back of the mountain (Judea and Samaria) for about two hundred years and more, from the neighboring Canaanite cities, or from Syria and crossed the Jordan. According to the archaeological findings, only gradually did these pre-Hebrew people create their own identity, and the belief in one common God. It turns out that during this period, which according to the book of Joshua was conquered by the Blitz by the Israelites, the cities of Jericho and Ai had already been destroyed and uninhabited for a long time. In general, according to the archaeological findings, these two cities were not destroyed in the same period, but were destroyed many decades apart from each other. These findings and conclusions point, in my opinion, to the resilience of the Israeli academy, which is not afraid to touch on such a charged topic even if the conclusions of these studies so prominently contradict the central myth of Judaism, the Exodus.
Having said that, I must also say the thing that bothers me about this: if these are the archaeological finds, why, then, have I not found articles and publications of them in the popular press? Why didn't I hear about these innovations on the radio? It is hard for me to believe that this silence is the result of a deliberate policy of the media, surely they would see it as a hot topic that, if handled "correctly", would provoke many echoes and controversies, and I am putting it mildly. I suspect that the reason lies in the great caution that the archaeologists take, due to their already complex relationship with the religious world. Is it an open secret that the ultra-orthodox circles exert constant pressure on archaeologists regarding the archaeological excavations, and additional pressure of this type may not only endanger the existence of archaeological research in Israel, but also the researchers themselves. Archeology is here, without a doubt, between a rock and a hard place. There is no possibility for her to improve her public relations by widely publishing such findings in order to gain more support for her research. Therefore, despite the negligible direct political effects that archaeological research has, it is certainly not impossible that archaeological research is indirectly harmed by internal politics in the country, out of the caution that archaeologists need to exercise.
The conclusion from all of the above is that even in today's research system it is not possible to completely avoid political and economic influences. Science today is mainly exposed to economic influences, in the fields of applied research. The more acute the conditions of a social or political conflict, the more ripe the conditions are for political influences on research fields relevant to the conflict. In these cases, perhaps more than ever, scientists need a lot of political courage and a developed sense of criticism, in order to reduce these effects and increase their independence. This will inevitably improve the quality of their research. Research directed by impartiality and by questions designed solely to understand phenomena and examine explanations will always be more open to all possibilities, and therefore will also be able to reject wrong answers more easily. In doing so, he will also advance more quickly towards uncovering the truth, which, according to the philosophy of science, is the ambition of the scientist.
For Dr. Oren Hasson's photography blog
More of the topic in Hayadan:
One response
Excellent article!!!
Good and interesting writing, and a satisfactory biological explanation. Well done!