The Influence Of Antiscience Mentality On Banning Animal Use In Science Research

The Role of Antiscience in History

Discuss about the Antiscience for Animal Lovers.

Anti science elements are intricately associated with each and every section in different nations. They have a considerable role in alternating the course of output of different scientific advancements that a nation wants to take to provide betterment of the world. This group of elements comprises of ideas which reject science and different scientific approaches. It mainly considers them as views which are unnecessarily hyped out and never considers science as an objective method that solves answers to million dollar questions. They never believe that Science helps people to thrive with utmost comfort and knowledge (Wardle et al. 2013, pg. 15).

Such type of elements was present even in the times when the most successful discoveries were made like those during the time of Copernicus or Galileo. The anti science behavior of the authoritative person of those era mainly placed their ANTISCIENCE belief on the shoulders of the Almighty (Chern 2015, pg. 45). They even went further to sacrifice lives of the people challenging their beliefs. In the present era, anti science elements and people are harboring such concepts and are present in different sectors of nation with the politics being the biggest sector.

In the present generation, a huge amount of protest s have been initiated by the nature lovers as well as the animal lovers who claim that animal lives are also costly and cannot be butchered or sacrificed for the betterment of science. Over the decades, different types of medical testing or discovery of medicines and their advantageous effects are first applied on animals in order to get an idea about the results it might have on human beings (Kricheldorf 2016, pg 53-69). It has been severely criticized by the animal lovers that animals like human beings are also precious creations of God and therefore their lives are also costly. The animal lovers also declared that their lives should not be taken away as they are helpless and cannot express their feelings. Environmentalists demand that forceful sacrifice of such animals lead to loss of ecological balance. This feud had been continued for a lot of time. Thereby it had reached solutions where judges have found their claim to be more valid than the scientists who believed it to be an essential process for scientific advancements. However, the matter is not that easy and clear as it seems and there lies many powers that had contributed for the decisions to be accepted by the judges.

Antiscience and Animal Lovers

The main powers which had indeed been the real players behind the law being passed is the ANTISCIENCE mentality of the politicians who have been the influencers as well as the nagging people that confirmed this law to be implemented. They had a clear idea that comparatively a larger section of the society believes in science than the section who believe in anti-science. They are witty enough not to make this section excited by declaration of their primitive ideas in the modern generations. Therefore it can be concluded that they achieved their aim in a polished way by demeaning the practice of science of using animal models for their testing purposes. The anti-science people critically evaluated and excited the emotional cords of the animal lovers and environmentalists. By these, they made and attack on the scientific advancements and fulfill their wishes.

One might raise an arguments which will state that the politicians are unnecessarily been dragged in to the controversy that has nothing to do with politics. Herein one needs to specify the typical feelings that the anti science elements harbor. It has been researched over the years that many politicians deny the concept of universality as well as the legitimization of alternatives (Latham 2014, pg 24). They also believe that the outcomes of the scientific results are usually devoid of any underlying reality. Politicians also feel that science cannot reflect the ideology of the dominant groups that are present in the society and therefore it should have no existence. They have also not taken the initiative of nuclear movement of the past and have started an anti nuclear movement overstating the negative effects of nuclear power. There are many politicians who still are ardent followers of conspiracy theories and creationism and strictly oppose the evolutionary approach of Science to be demeaning even in 2027. Therefore one can easily link such ideologies to be acting as a very important background that supported the law of banning animal use in scientific studies.

One can also establish the point that indeed the laws that were published for the animal use ban in science was more than a push from the ANTISCIENCE elements of the government besides the animal lovers. This was based on the regular debate of many politically thinking individuals and science lovers are the controversial topic of ‘The Appeal to Nature & the Naturalistic Fallacy’. In Australia, being a westernized country, it is indeed very astonishing to find that even in the modern year of 2027, a portion of people believes that everything which is natural is good and also right and anything that tries to manipulate it is ought to be negative or bad. There is an ANTISCIENCE belief in here that science with advising courses and technologies have tried to disrupt the natural flow of nature (Dvorsky 2017). This had lead to the argumentation between both the parties. The ANTISCIENCE people believes that all things natural are wholesome and efficient whereas anything unnatural is unhealthy and also unsavory. Researchers who have worked on the topic have found that the main root of the conviction arises from the assumption which is unfounded that the scientific achievements and the technological advancements which are made lie outside nature. They also believe that the activities undertaken by science in the entire universe often causes disruption of not only the natural flow but also the flow of equilibrium of things (McCredie & Mitchell 2013). From this view, one can easily understand that this kind of thinking are the main contributors of the obstructions for different biological research, genomic and also several such ideas.

Politicians and Antiscience Beliefs

In the preliminary years of the decades, there was a huge debate where a large portion of the society mainly containing the anti science elements protested against the use of millions of money over the research projects that are conducted in the country. They even started holding meetings to discuss about the expenses of the government over the researchers and even raised questions on the credibility of the grants allocated for the science researches (Star 2016, pg. 13). Previous few years back, around 2016 to 2017, a section of the politician demanded that millions of money were getting wasted on researches which are ‘absurd’ and did not hold any value to the development of the nation. Although proper explanation was not been able to them, this debate had continued for years. However, researches were still being carried out with outcomes that had a very fruitful result for developing the health of different patient with diseases (Fiatt 2013, pg 57). Therefore one can easily site this as an example which proved their ANTISCIENCE attitudes which might have played a crucial role in animal ban used for researches in the present era as well.

Another argument can also be based here which will prove that how anti-science elements have been forced into ordinary citizens’ regular life by a political party. A few years back a political party had come up to be named as the Health Australia Party called the HAP which proposed the use of Alternative medicine as the main treatment that should be done in case of the patients. They clearly propagated the concept that removal of the influence of the multinational pharmaceutical companies was necessary along with the application of evidence based unbiased real world clinical studies with targeted spending (Science-Based Medicine 2017). Through this, they clearly tried to infuse in people’s mind the differences between the so called natural and pharmaceutical medicines. They tried to override the fact that there are many pharmaceutical medicines which are formed from the components of nature only. They used the term ‘pharmaceutical’ as a buzzword to make people dislike such medicines. With the term unbiased clinical trial they tried to implement that the randomized control methods scientists conduct to perform experiments are manipulated and hence should be neglected with preference on unbiased natural  real world studies (Mayo 2014, pg. 78). They also advised to target the spending on the researches and apply the research funds wisely. They even advised not to pay more heed to from a diseases management system and to be more concerned about the health creation system. From these advices formed by the political party, it was very well understood that how they wanted to stop expenditure and conductance of scientific research and promote the use of alternative medicine. This gives a clear idea about how similar parties have tried to stop the advancement of science by trying their best to brainwash the ordinary citizens and by creating barriers in the field of science (Lindenmayer 2013, pg. 250-255).

All the arguments stated above gives a clear idea about how the ANTISCIENCE elements of the government have always come forward to create obstacles in the path of advancement of science. Hence it can be formulated that the animal use ban which had been passed by the legal system of the nation with the plea from the animal lovers and also the environmentalists might have also been the result of continuous push and also support from these elements within the system. As a citizen of the nation, one can comment that neither of the system should try to create harm and barriers for the other system. A balanced maintenance of the ideologies is necessary to help ordinary citizens lead a better life with hopes and aspirations for the future.

References:

Chern, K., 2015. A Middle Power's National Interest. Australia's Trade, Investment and Security in the Asian Century, p.45.

Dvorsky, G. 2017. 8 Logical Fallacies That Fuel Anti-Science Sentiments. [online] Gizmodo.com.au. Available at: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/04/8-logical-fallacies-that-fuel-anti-science-sentiments/ [Accessed 28 Feb. 2017].

FlAtt, J., 2013. Critical discourse analysis of rhetoric against complementary medicine. Creative Approaches to Research, 6(2), p.57.

Kricheldorf, H.R., 2016. Antiscience and Antireductionism. In Getting It Right in Science and Medicine (pp. 53-69). Springer International Publishing.

Latham, M., 2014. The Political Bubble: Why Australians Don't Trust Politics. Macmillan Publishers Aus..

Lindenmayer, D., 2013. From biodiversity to bioperversity: from good science to poor environmental policy. Pacific Conservation Biology, 19(4), pp.250-255.

Mayo, O., 2014. Genetically modified organisms, science and the humanities. Meanjin, 73(1), p.78.

McCredie, J. and Michell, N. eds., 2013. The Best Australian Science Writing 2013. NewSouth.

Science-Based Medicine. 2017. Australia’s New Antiscience Party. [online] Available at: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/australias-new-antiscience-party/ [Accessed 28 Feb. 2017].

Skidmore, M.J., 2016. Populism and its perils: language and politics. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sk?odowska, sectio K–Politologia, 22(1), p.7.

Star, S.L., 2016. 1 Revisiting Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology. Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star, p.13.

Wardle, J.L., Adams, J., Lui, C.W. and Steel, A.E., 2013. Current challenges and future directions for naturopathic medicine in Australia: a qualitative examination of perceptions and experiences from grassroots practice. BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 13(1), p.15.