‘Regular science’ is inherently political

Abstract

With allusions to Nietzsche, violent anti‐GM organisms groups, nefarious ‘parallel scientists’ and numerous other actors and actions, Marcel Kuntz manufactures a bizarre alchemy to cast postmodernism as an ‘assault’ on science [1]. Whilst one can dispute his use of the ‘postmodern’ label itself and the idea that tolerance of ambiguity and diversity of opinion is a twentieth century phenomenon, we discuss here why Kuntz mis‐characterizes his home base of science as a purely technical and objective enterprise. First, Kuntz frames ‘regular science’ as an apolitical, value‐neutral enterprise that is immune to social and political forces. This belies decades of serious scholarship. The entire trajectory of scientific inquiry, from conception of a hypothesis to translational research and application, is subject to internal and external political determinants. By ‘political’, we refer to the entire constellation of situations in which ‘what is apparent’ differs distinctly from ‘what is actually intended or at work’. For instance, an analysis of scientific expertise about the risks and benefits of biotechnology applications in human genetics and in the agri‐food …