Politics should not interfere with science, because when it does, whether through major priorities (such as Sarkozy’s Alzheimer’s plan), it prevents progress. By definition, science is a long-term endeavour, and major discoveries occur unpredictably in a fertile environment. When Stalin decided that Lysenko would manage genetics according to the laws of socialism – a narrow and false version of Lamarck rather than Darwin – Soviet science died out and it took generations for it to regain some of its former glory. When the president of the world’s leading scientific power chooses an absurd and misguided science policy, the consequences will be the same. Appointing an anti-vaccine and high priest of fake news as health minister bodes ill for the future. He is starting by reviving the false link between vaccines and autism, invented by Wakefield and since retracted because it was based on completely fabricated results. This ‘doctor who lost his licence to practise’ has taken refuge in the United States to continue peddling junk and fake news. R. F. Kennedy continues to advocate cod liver oil as a treatment for measles, which is hardly reassuring.
When, as others did in 1933, entire branches of science are banned and books are banned (from The Handmaid’s Tale to soon Shakespeare, under the pretext of religion, gender and other hazy theories (the world was created in six days)), the future of this great power is clearly in danger. The dismissal of a large number of world-renowned scientists by a pro-Nazi, white supremacist family in South Africa, who thinks only of sending people to Mars, comes as no surprise in terms of the consequences. The brains behind all this, the Vances and other Thiels (the boss of PayPal, who should be boycotted along with Tesla), are thinking like Orwell and Goebbels. At the top of society there are intelligent people, and at the bottom there are slaves who must above all not think, not read, and to ensure this, books must be banned and burned, etc.
The withdrawal of funding for world-renowned and respected scientific institutions is a global disaster and a return to medieval ignorance, denying the fundamental fact that we can only act effectively on a system if we understand how it works at a deep level. All our daily activities demonstrate the importance of science, because none of the tools and methods we use in all areas of activity would ever have seen the light of day without the knowledge that science brings. What would medicine be, for example, without science? Ultimately, there is continuity. It is mediocre, small-minded individuals who take the helm with a single goal: to stay there as long as possible, even if it means destroying the environment and the world in which our children will live. The decision to remove protected areas in the Pacific Ocean and open them up to mining is an ecological disaster that will be paid for in cash later — when He is no longer there.
The outcome of such a policy is well known. The top spot will be taken by China, which has long understood that progress is achieved through intelligent investment in science and technology rather than through hundreds of billions invested in incessant wars over the past 80 years — most of which, incidentally, have been lost.
And what about Europe? Not so long ago, neurology was essentially Franco-German, with Broca, Wernicke, Déjerine, Bancaud, etc., and science was largely European. The situation would be conducive to regaining our place. Admittedly, the financial situation is bad with Putin, and defence is rightly back at the forefront. But focusing on the long term, ecology and science is always a good investment for our children. This would be possible, especially if our politicians understood that ‘a burden shared is a burden lightened’ and that social injustice is not just a moral issue, but also a guarantee of greater support from the nation, support that becomes very difficult to obtain when so few reap the benefits and do nothing to share the burden. Reducing inequality would make the message of war much more bearable and understandable. We should also attract talented researchers from the United States ― many of whom are packing their bags to go to China ― and invest in new technologies without defining a method a priori; good surprises always come from there, we don’t expect them.
Photo : Darren Halstead / Unsplash
