Week 4: Science and Politics
As a little child, I enjoyed going to the zoo. The abundance of animals from all over the world amazed and entertained me. I ran to the different parts of the zoo, looking for my favourite animals, such as the lion and seals. It was like travelling to different parts of the world---from the fields to under the sea. It wasn't until I was older that I began to feel bad for the animals in the cages and behind display. Some animals in zoos are provided care due to physical state that prevent them from surviving in the wild. However, where and how many of the animals arrive at the zoo is a mystery in most cases. I began to wonder why we do not visit animals in their natural habitat? The most genuine form should allow you to understand their natural behaviours better, right? Of course money is an issue, however, the moral side of me constantly bothered me about zoos.
Last year when I travelled to Germany, I went to lots of museums. There was even a special location in Berlin called 'Museum Island'. Walking through the countless galleries and exhibits, I simply admired the art and the history. However, through the discussions we have had in the past few weeks, I was reminded of the politics behind museums. In the past few weeks, we have visited many museums, ranging from national museums to natural history museums. Some had special displays, such as for the celebration of the quest for longitude. Like a zoo, museums held "captive" items from all around the world. The moral obligation to consider the story of how materials got behind displays, however, are not as natural since they are not living things (for me, at least). However, each item does represent some part of another culture. How they got there and why they are there do bring up debates and reflect political hierarchy and interest.
This week, we were asked to consider the relationship of science and politics. Museums collect not only artefacts but also political statements. Back in London, we visited the Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum. Looking at the map, I immediately wanted to visit the Korean exhibit. I was curious about the presentation of material and what would be displayed. Would they accurately reflect the culture I knew? The exhibit turned out to be in a hallway in between other exhibits. People seemed to walk by it and comment 'oh look' but never really stop to look. As opposed to separate rooms which people intentionally walk into, the hallway location did not attract many people. All the cases were filled with potteries and some drawers. The potteries were from the three different kingdoms that reigned parts of Korea in the past. I was a bit upset that this was the main items since I believed that there is more to my culture than potteries. There was a traditional dress (hanbok) on display. However, it did not look traditional and was some modernised version by a modern designer. I felt like it didn’t capture the beauty of traditional 'hanbok'. One girl ran up to the case: 'Oh, that's pretty… but, it has too many frills.' She then walked away. I was upset because traditional 'hanbok's do not have frills and felt the display inaccurately displayed the culture. Perhaps because Korea was not as heavily tied historically to Britain, the materials were not as diligently put together. Other countries' exhibits seemed much more elaborate and covered more time span. As opposed to countries that Britain has colonized in the past, the artefacts in the displays were not as extensive. It seems that in this case, both things on and not on display reflected the political dynamic between Britain and another country. I wondered why the curators decided to only display certain things in the Korean exhibits. Why not include more materials? Why was the majority of items potteries? Are they easier to attain? Why was this exhibit included?
Aside from political statements made in museums, science is heavily involved in politics and debates. Controversial topics such as animal testing and ideas that oppose religious or widely accepted views could become political, involving protests and a religious authority. For my research project, I have been reading on the application of scientific discovery for policy making. In England, especially since the Labour party election in 1997, 'evidence based policy' (more correctly 'evidence influenced/informed policy') has become important. Scientific research can support certain policies. However, even with this, there are many issues and debates. Data could be skewed and biased, possibly incorrectly influencing policies, leading to inappropriate policies. How many of the data presented in the media are true? When research results are presented in the media, I remain sceptical and try to look up the actual facts. How much of the information in presented can be trusted? How efficient and effective is evidence influenced policy?
Last year when I travelled to Germany, I went to lots of museums. There was even a special location in Berlin called 'Museum Island'. Walking through the countless galleries and exhibits, I simply admired the art and the history. However, through the discussions we have had in the past few weeks, I was reminded of the politics behind museums. In the past few weeks, we have visited many museums, ranging from national museums to natural history museums. Some had special displays, such as for the celebration of the quest for longitude. Like a zoo, museums held "captive" items from all around the world. The moral obligation to consider the story of how materials got behind displays, however, are not as natural since they are not living things (for me, at least). However, each item does represent some part of another culture. How they got there and why they are there do bring up debates and reflect political hierarchy and interest.
This week, we were asked to consider the relationship of science and politics. Museums collect not only artefacts but also political statements. Back in London, we visited the Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum. Looking at the map, I immediately wanted to visit the Korean exhibit. I was curious about the presentation of material and what would be displayed. Would they accurately reflect the culture I knew? The exhibit turned out to be in a hallway in between other exhibits. People seemed to walk by it and comment 'oh look' but never really stop to look. As opposed to separate rooms which people intentionally walk into, the hallway location did not attract many people. All the cases were filled with potteries and some drawers. The potteries were from the three different kingdoms that reigned parts of Korea in the past. I was a bit upset that this was the main items since I believed that there is more to my culture than potteries. There was a traditional dress (hanbok) on display. However, it did not look traditional and was some modernised version by a modern designer. I felt like it didn’t capture the beauty of traditional 'hanbok'. One girl ran up to the case: 'Oh, that's pretty… but, it has too many frills.' She then walked away. I was upset because traditional 'hanbok's do not have frills and felt the display inaccurately displayed the culture. Perhaps because Korea was not as heavily tied historically to Britain, the materials were not as diligently put together. Other countries' exhibits seemed much more elaborate and covered more time span. As opposed to countries that Britain has colonized in the past, the artefacts in the displays were not as extensive. It seems that in this case, both things on and not on display reflected the political dynamic between Britain and another country. I wondered why the curators decided to only display certain things in the Korean exhibits. Why not include more materials? Why was the majority of items potteries? Are they easier to attain? Why was this exhibit included?
Aside from political statements made in museums, science is heavily involved in politics and debates. Controversial topics such as animal testing and ideas that oppose religious or widely accepted views could become political, involving protests and a religious authority. For my research project, I have been reading on the application of scientific discovery for policy making. In England, especially since the Labour party election in 1997, 'evidence based policy' (more correctly 'evidence influenced/informed policy') has become important. Scientific research can support certain policies. However, even with this, there are many issues and debates. Data could be skewed and biased, possibly incorrectly influencing policies, leading to inappropriate policies. How many of the data presented in the media are true? When research results are presented in the media, I remain sceptical and try to look up the actual facts. How much of the information in presented can be trusted? How efficient and effective is evidence influenced policy?