Hello, Minjae,
"Politics should govern science" ??
While I don't believe in the statement as written and I started this reply with the intent to object, I will outline a basic premise from which you might be able to construct a useful discussion. I'll note that the word "politics" often carries a negative connotation, which unfairly influences the statement, as written.
My first reaction to the statement was negative because I had just finished reading an interview with Dr. Fauci in which he was unsuccessful in convincing political leader(s) that the pandemic was serious. I see interference with science in that example, as well with other cases involving environment and health and safety.
But there ARE cases in which politics needs to govern science. Here are a few examples:
- The development of powerful gene editing technology allows modification of the human (and plants and animal) genomes. Moral and ethical issues need to be addressed for such technology to be accepted by society.
- Advances in nuclear physics carry radiation risks as these technologies may enter society and may be adapted for unwanted uses.
- New pharmaceutical products require sufficient testing to prove efficacy and safety.
So there are many legitimate situations where "politics" should become involved. I would like to chose a different word, however. Perhaps you could come up with a phrase that notes that the broader population must play a role in managing scientific progress, other than politics. "Society" must play a role in governing science, might be a possibility.
Bob

Robert S.
01/27/21
Minjae P.
thank you01/27/21