Hve1 5
Hve1 5
UNIT- I
DEMOCRATIC VALUES
Understanding Democratic values: Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, Freedom, Justice, Pluralism,
Tolerance, Respect for All, Freedom of Expression, Citizen Participation in Governance – World Democracies:
French Revolution, American Independence, Indian Freedom Movement.
These include freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the press, as well as the right to a fair
trial and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
These rights are often enshrined in a constitution or a bill of rights, providing a legal framework
to protect them.
Political Pluralism
The existence of multiple political parties and groups that represent different interests and
perspectives within society.
Allows for a healthy and competitive political environment where diverse opinions can be
expressed and debated.
Citizen Participation
The active engagement of citizens in the political process.
Voting, attending town hall meetings, participating in public debates, joining political parties,
and engaging in civil society organizations.
Encourages a vibrant civil society and helps ensure that the government is responsive to the
needs and concerns of the populace.
Majority Rule with Minority Rights
While the majority's decision typically prevails, the rights of minority groups must be protected.
Mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights and
freedoms of minorities, fostering an inclusive society.
Equality before the Law
All individuals are treated equally under the law, without discrimination.
Ensures that laws and policies apply uniformly to all citizens, and that there is no preferential
treatment or unjust discrimination.
Decentralization of Power
Power is distributed among various levels of government, from national to local authorities.
Allows for greater representation and responsiveness to local needs and concerns, fostering a
more participatory and effective governance.
Protection of Human Rights
A commitment to uphold and protect the human rights of all individuals within the state.
Ensures adherence to international human rights standards and treaties, providing a framework
for protecting the dignity and freedom of all citizens.
2
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
2. Promotes Equality
o Democracy is based on the principle of political equality, meaning every citizen has an equal
say in the governance of their country.
o Impact: This fosters a sense of inclusion and fairness, helping to bridge divides and reduce
social inequality.
3. Encourages Participation
o Democracies provide mechanisms for citizen involvement in the political process, such as
voting, public consultations, and civil society activities.
o Impact: Active citizen participation leads to more informed and responsive governance, as
well as a more engaged and empowered populace.
4. Ensures Accountability and Transparency
o Democratic systems have checks and balances that hold elected officials accountable to the
public and ensure transparency in government actions.
o Impact: This reduces corruption, increases trust in government institutions, and ensures that
leaders act in the best interests of their constituents.
5. Facilitates Peaceful Transfer of Power
o Democracies provide structured processes for the regular transfer of power through free and
fair elections.
o Impact: This minimizes the risk of power struggles and violence, promoting political
stability and continuity.
Needs of Democracy
1. Educated and Informed Citizenry
o Need: Citizens must be educated and informed about political processes, issues, and their
rights and responsibilities.
3
Impact: Rich people and groups have more influence over politics than poor people.
5. Populism and Demagoguery
Problem: Leaders may use emotional appeals and promises to gain support.
Impact: Can weaken democratic institutions and divide society.
6. Misinformation and Media Manipulation
Problem: Spread of false information and manipulation of media.
Impact: Misleads the public and unfairly influences elections.
7. Weak Institutions
Problem: Government bodies are not strong enough to enforce laws and policies.
Impact: Leads to instability and corruption.
8. Lack of Accountability
Problem: Officials are not held responsible for their actions.
Impact: Leads to abuse of power and inefficiency.
o Principle: Fraternity fosters an environment where people respect and understand one
another.
5. Common Good
o Explanation: Working together for the benefit of the whole community.
o Principle: Fraternity involves striving for the well-being and progress of society as a
whole.
Importance of Fraternity in India
1. National Integration
o Explanation: Fraternity helps bind the country together.
o Importance: Promotes unity among citizens from different regions and backgrounds.
2. Social Harmony
o Explanation: Reduces conflicts and promotes peaceful coexistence.
o Importance: Creates a stable and harmonious society.
3. Democratic Values
o Explanation: Upholds the values of democracy like justice, liberty, and equality.
o Importance: Ensures that democracy works effectively and inclusively.
4. Economic Development
o Explanation: A united society can work together towards common goals.
o Importance: Helps in achieving economic progress and reducing poverty.
o Impact: Ensures that governments are responsive to the needs and desires of their
citizens, reducing the likelihood of unrest and conflict.
4. Economic Prosperity
o Explanation: Economic freedom encourages entrepreneurship and competition.
o Impact: Leads to economic growth, job creation, and improved standards of living.
What are the roles of Freedom?
1. Personal Growth
Self-Expression: Freedom lets people share their thoughts and ideas without fear.
Pursuit of Happiness: Allows individuals to follow their interests and dreams.
2. Social Improvement
Innovation: When people are free to think and create, new ideas and technologies develop.
Cultural Richness: Freedom helps different cultures and traditions coexist and thrive.
3. Political Stability
Participation: Freedom lets people vote, run for office, and be involved in politics.
Accountability: Ensures that leaders are transparent and responsible for their actions.
4. Economic Growth
Entrepreneurship: Encourages people to start businesses and create jobs.
Efficient Markets: Helps markets work better by letting supply and demand set prices.
5. Human Rights
Protection: Safeguards people‘s basic rights and dignity.
Equality: Ensures everyone has the same opportunities and is treated fairly.
6. Education and Learning
Access to Information: Guarantees people can get and share information freely.
Critical Thinking: Promotes thinking critically and questioning ideas.
7. Community Building
Forming Groups: Lets people join or create groups based on common interests.
Civic Engagement: Encourages people to help their communities and get involved.
8. Security and Peace
Balanced Power: Prevents too much power from being concentrated in one place.
Conflict Resolution: Promotes solving disputes peacefully through discussion and rules.
9. Ethical Behavior
Responsibility: Encourages people to make ethical choices and be accountable for their actions.
8
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
Good Governance: Helps ensure that governments and businesses act honestly and
transparently.
View on different justice by various political thinkers and also explain kinds of justice.
Views on Justice by Different Political Thinkers
1. Plato
o Justice means everyone doing their own job and not interfering with others. In a just
society, everyone should perform their role according to their abilities.
o Example: In Plato‘s ideal society, rulers‘ rule, warriors protect, and workers produce
goods.
2. Aristotle
o Justice is about fairness and treating people according to their contribution and needs.
He talked about "distributive justice" (fair distribution of resources) and "rectificatory
justice" (correcting wrongs).
o Example: A person who works harder should receive more benefits compared to
someone who doesn‘t.
3. John Rawls
o Justice is about fairness. His idea, the ―Theory of Justice,‖ suggests that a just society is
one where rules are designed behind a ―veil of ignorance,‖ where no one knows their
future position in society. This ensures fairness.
o Example: If you don‘t know if you‘ll be rich or poor, you‘d want laws that help
everyone equally, especially the least advantaged.
4. Robert Nozick
o Justice is about individual rights and freedom. He believed that as long as people acquire
and transfer goods fairly, any distribution is just. He was against redistributing wealth.
o Example: If someone earns a lot of money fairly, it‘s their right to keep it without the
government taking it away to give to others.
5. Karl Marx
o Justice involves addressing economic inequalities. Marx believed that a just society
would eliminate class distinctions and ensure everyone has equal access to resources.
o Example: A society where the working class has equal ownership of the means of
production, not just the wealthy few.
9
Kinds of Justice
1. Distributive Justice
o Concerns the fair allocation of resources and benefits in society. It‘s about how goods
and wealth are distributed among people.
o Example: Deciding how to share public funds for education and healthcare.
2. Procedural Justice
o Focuses on the fairness of the processes and procedures used to make decisions. It‘s
about ensuring that the methods of decision-making are fair and transparent.
o Example: Ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate in legal proceedings.
3. Retributive Justice
o Involves punishing those who have committed wrongdoings. It‘s about giving people
what they deserve based on their actions.
o Example: A court sentencing a thief to prison for stealing.
4. Restorative Justice
o Aims to repair the harm caused by criminal behavior. It involves the offender making
amends with the victim and the community.
o Example: A program where a convicted person works to compensate their victim or
engages in community service.
5. Social Justice
o Focuses on creating a fair society by addressing inequalities and ensuring equal
opportunities and rights for all people.
o Example: Advocating for equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender.
3. Social Harmony
o Encourages peaceful coexistence among various groups.
o Example: Communities that embrace pluralism often experience less conflict and more
cooperation.
4. Equal Rights
o Supports the idea that all groups and individuals should have equal rights and
opportunities.
o Example: Ensures that minority groups have the same rights as the majority.
5. Learning and Growth
o Exposure to different viewpoints and practices helps individuals and societies grow and
adapt.
o Example: Learning about different cultures can broaden one‘s understanding and
empathy.
Reasons Pluralism is Not Accepted
1. Fear of Losing Identity
o Some people fear that their cultural or national identity might be diluted.
o Example: A group might worry that their traditions and values will be overshadowed
by others.
2. Cultural Conflict
o Differences in beliefs and practices can lead to misunderstandings and clashes.
o Example: Conflicting values and practices might cause tension between groups.
3. Resistance to Change
o People who are comfortable with the status quo may resist changes brought by
pluralism.
o Example: Individuals who prefer traditional ways might find it difficult to accept new
ideas or practices.
4. Perceived Threats
o Some might view pluralism as a threat to social cohesion or stability.
o Example: Concerns that diverse groups might not integrate well or might challenge
established norms.
5. Inequality Issues
11
o There can be concerns that pluralism might not fully address or resolve existing
inequalities.
o Example: Even with pluralism, some groups might still face discrimination or
marginalization
12
13
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
o Respecting others‘ ideas and experiences can provide new insights and opportunities for
learning.
o Example: Being open to different viewpoints can help you learn and grow personally
and professionally.
7. Maintains Social Order
o Respectful behavior helps keep interactions smooth and orderly, reducing conflicts and
disruptions.
o Example: Following social norms and being polite in public spaces helps maintain a
harmonious environment
6. Integrity
Government and leaders act with honesty and ethical behavior.
Example: Avoiding corruption and making decisions based on public interest rather than
personal gain.
7. Collaboration
Working together with different groups and organizations to achieve common goals.
Example: Partnerships between government, businesses, and community organizations to
address local issues.
8. Education and Awareness
Providing citizens with the knowledge and resources they need to participate effectively.
Example: Offering civic education programs and easy access to information about how the
government works.
9. Feedback Mechanisms
Systems in place for citizens to provide feedback and for government to act on it.
Example: Surveys, suggestion boxes, and public consultations where citizens can share their
opinions.
10. Efficiency
Ensuring that government processes are effective and resources are used wisely.
Example: Streamlining procedures to reduce bureaucracy and improve service delivery.
17
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
o Storming of the Bastille: On July 14, 1789, people stormed the Bastille prison in Paris,
symbolizing the start of the revolution.
o Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: This document was adopted,
declaring equality and rights for all men.
2. 1790 – National Assembly and Reforms
o Formation of the National Assembly: The Third Estate formed its own assembly,
challenging the king‘s authority.
o Reforms: The Assembly began making changes, like reducing the power of the
monarchy and introducing new laws.
3. 1791 – New Constitution
o Constitution of 1791: This created a constitutional monarchy, limiting the king‘s
powers and establishing a new government structure.
4. 1792-1793 – Radical Phase
o End of the Monarchy: In 1792, the monarchy was abolished, and France was declared
a republic.
o Reign of Terror: From 1793 to 1794, radicals like Maximilien Robespierre led a period
of intense political purges and executions, known as the Reign of Terror.
5. 1795-1799 – Directory and Instability
o Directory Government: After the fall of Robespierre, a new government called the
Directory took over. It was marked by corruption and instability.
o Rise of Napoleon: In 1799, a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte took control
through a coup, ending the revolution and establishing himself as the ruler.
What are influences of the French Revolution? Explain.
The French Revolution had a big impact on many aspects of society and politics, both in France and
around the world.
1. Spread of Revolutionary Ideas
The ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity spread to other countries, inspiring similar
movements.
Example: Other nations, like those in Latin America, started their own revolutions for
independence and democratic reforms.
2. End of Absolute Monarchies
The idea that kings and queens should not have total power became less accepted.
18
Example: The idea influenced the decline of absolute monarchies in Europe, leading to the rise
of constitutional monarchies and republics.
3. Rise of Democracy
The revolution showed that ordinary people could challenge and change their government.
Example: Many countries started adopting democratic practices, like voting and creating
representative governments.
4. Human Rights and Equality
The revolution promoted the idea that everyone should have equal rights and be treated fairly.
Example: This led to the development of human rights declarations and laws that promote
equality.
5. Impact on Law and Government
The French Revolution introduced new legal and political ideas, like the separation of powers
and secular laws.
Example: Many countries adopted new legal systems and reforms based on the principles of
the revolution.
6. Changes in Social Structures
The revolution challenged the traditional social hierarchies and privileges of the nobility and
clergy.
Example: The idea that all people should have equal social status led to reforms in class systems
and social mobility.
7. Economic Reforms
The revolution led to changes in how economies were managed, with more focus on fairer
distribution of resources.
Example: Land reforms and changes in tax systems aimed to reduce economic inequalities.
8. Cultural and Educational Reforms
The revolution influenced changes in education and culture, promoting secularism and public
education.
Example: Education became more accessible, and there was a push for creating public schools
and secular teaching.
9. Nationalism
The revolution helped spread the idea of nationalism, where people feel a strong connection to
their country and its values.
Example: This led to the growth of national pride and the development of nation-states.
19
o The INC, under Gandhi‘s leadership, began demanding complete independence ratherthan just
greater self-rule.
o Example: The "Quit India" resolution in 1942 called for the British to leave India
immediately.
7. World War II Impact (1939-1945)
o The British involvement in World War II without consulting Indian leaders led toincreased
demands for independence.
o Result: The British promised to grant independence after the war.
8. Partition and Independence (1947)
o India gained independence on August 15, 1947, but was divided into two countries:India and
Pakistan.
o Result: The partition led to widespread violence and mass migrations.
Key Figures in the Movement
Mahatma Gandhi: Leader of non-violent protests and civil disobedience.
Jawaharlal Nehru: First Prime Minister of India and a key leader in the INC.
Subhas Chandra Bose: Leader of the Indian National Army, who sought independence
through armed struggle.
What are the causes of Indian National Movement: Influences and Catalysts?
The Indian National Movement for independence was driven by several causes and influences.
Causes
1. British Rule and Exploitation
o The British controlled India and exploited its resources and people.
o Example: High taxes, unfair treatment, and economic policies that harmed Indian
businesses and farmers.
2. Social and Economic Injustice
o Many Indians faced social discrimination and economic hardship under British rule.
o Example: The British favored their own businesses and neglected the needs of Indian
workers and farmers.
3. Lack of Political Rights
o Indians had little say in their own government and were excluded from important
decisions.
21
o Example: Indians were not given significant roles in the British administration or
military.
4. Educational and Cultural Awakening
o Education and awareness of other freedom movements inspired Indians.
o Example: Learning about democratic ideals and self-rule motivated Indians to seek their
own independence.
Influences
1. Other Global Revolutions
o The success of other countries in gaining independence or improving their rights
inspired Indians.
o Example: The American Revolution and the French Revolution showed that people
could overthrow oppressive regimes.
2. World War I Impact
o The involvement of Indians in World War I without gaining any political concessions
led to increased dissatisfaction.
o Example: After the war, there were promises of self-rule that were not fulfilled, causing
frustration.
3. Rise of Nationalist Ideas
o Nationalist leaders and thinkers promoted the idea of self-rule and Indian identity.
o Example: Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi inspired people with
ideas of freedom and unity.
Catalysts
1. Partition of Bengal (1905)
o The British decision to divide Bengal to weaken Indian unity led to widespread protests.
o Result: The partition was reversed in 1911, but it united many Indians against British
policies.
2. Formation of the Indian National Congress (INC)
o The INC became a key organization advocating for Indian rights and self-rule.
o Action: It became a major platform for political activism and protest against British
rule.
3. Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements
o Mahatma Gandhi‘s strategies of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience mobilized
millions of Indians.
22
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
o Example: The Salt March and other protests drew national and international attention
to the cause.
4. Partition of India (1947)
o The division of India into India and Pakistan marked the end of British rule.
o Result: The violence and upheaval surrounding the partition highlighted the urgent need
for independence.
23
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
Secularism is freedom of choosing one‘s religious beliefs and practices of a religion. It has it‘s
root in Greek and Roman philosophies.
Secularism
Suppose that despite being a US citizen, no one is willing to rent their house to you.
How would this make you feel? Would it not make you feel resentful? What if you decided
to complain against this discrimination and were told to go back to India? Would this not
make you feel angry? Your anger could take two forms. First, you might react by saying
that Christians should get the same treatment in places where Hindus and Muslims are in a
majority.
This is a form of retaliation. Or, you might take the view that there should be justice for
all. You may fight, stating that no one should be discriminated against on grounds of their
religious practices and beliefs.
This statement rests on the assumption that all forms of domination related to religion
should end. This is the essence of secularism a mentalism is very powerful. Suppose that
despite being a US citizen, no one is willing to rent their house to you.
How would this make you feel? Would it not make you feel resentful? What if you decided
to complain against this discrimination and were told to go back to India? Would this not
make you feel angry? Your anger could take two forms. First, you might react by saying
that Christians should get the same treatment in places where Hindus and Muslims are in a
majority.
This is a form of retaliation. Or, you might take the view that there should be justice for
all. You may fight, stating that no one should be discriminated against on grounds of their
religious practices and beliefs. This statement rests on the assumption that all forms of
domination related to religion should end. This is the essence of secularism
The Indian Constitution mandates that the Indian State be secular. According to the Constitution,
only a secular State can realize its objectives to ensure the following:
2. that some members do not dominate other members of the same religious community;
3. that the State does not enforce any particular religion nor take away the religious freedom of
individuals.
The Indian State works in various ways to prevent the above domination. First, it uses a
strategy of distancing itself from religion.
The Indian State is not ruled by a religious group and nor does it support any one religion.
In India, government spaces like law courts, police stations, government schools and
offices are not supposed to display or promote any one religion.
In what way is Indian secularism different from that of other democratic countries?
Some of the above objectives are similar to those that have been included in the
Constitutions of secular democratic countries in other parts of the world. For example, the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the legislature from making laws
―respecting an establishment of religion‖ or that ―prohibit the free exercise of religion‖.
What is meant by the word ‗establishment‘ is that the legislature cannot declare any
religion as the official religion. Nor can they give preference to one religion.
In the U.S.A. the separation between State and religion means that neither the State nor
religion can interfere in the affairs of one another.
There is one significant way in which Indian secularism differs from the dominant
understanding of secularism as practiced in the United States of America.
This is because unlike the strict separation between religion and the State in American
secularism, in Indian secularism the State can intervene in religious affairs.
Indian Constitution intervened in Hindu religious practices in order to abolish
untouchability. In Indian secularism, though the State is not strictly separate from religion
it does maintain a principled distance vis-à-vis religion.
This means that any interference in religion by the State has to be based on the ideals laid
out in the Constitution.
These ideals serve as the standard through which we can judge whether the State is or is
not behaving according to secular principles. The Indian State is secular and works in
various ways to prevent religious domination.
The Indian Constitution guarantees Fundamental Rights that are based on these secular
principles.
However, this is not to say that there is no violation of these rights in Indian society.
As discussed above, the most important aspect of secularism is its separation of religion
from State power. This is important for a country to function democratically. Almost all
countries of the world will have more than one religious group living in them. Within these
religious groups, there will most likely be one group that is in a majority.
If this majority religious group has access to State power, then it could quite easily use this
power and financial resources to discriminate against and persecute persons of other
religions. This tyranny of the majority could result in the discrimination, coercion and at
times even the killing of religious minorities.
The majority could quite easily prevent minorities from practicing their religions. Any form
of domination based on religion is in violation of the rights that a democratic society
guarantees to each and every citizen irrespective of their religion.
Therefore, the tyranny of the majority and the violation of Fundamental Rights that can
result is one reason why it is important to separate the State and religion in democratic
societies.
Another reason that it is important to separate religion from the State in democratic
societies is because we also need to protect the freedom of individuals to exit from their
religion, embrace another religion or have the freedom to interpret religious teachings
differently.
To understand this, point better, let us take the practice of untouchability. You might feel
that you dislike this practice within Hinduism and therefore, you want to try and reform it.
However, if State power were in the hands of those Hindus who support untouchability,
then do you think that you would have an easy task to try and change this? Even if you
were part of the dominant religious group, you might face a lot of resistance from fellow
members of your community.
These members who have control of State power might say that there is only one
interpretation of Hinduism and that you do not have the freedom to interpret this differently
Once upon a time, in a small village nestled among rolling hills, there lived people of
different faiths.
The villagers held diverse beliefs and followed various religious practices. Despite their
differences, they coexisted peacefully, respecting and honoring each other's faiths.
One sunny morning, a young girl named Maya set out on a journey. She was a curious and
open-minded child, always eager to learn about the world around her. As she walked along
the village path, she noticed a magnificent temple standing tall, its golden spires gleaming
in the sunlight.
Intrigued, Maya entered the temple, where she discovered a group of people engaged in
prayers. They wore vibrant clothes and chanted melodious hymns. Maya, although
unfamiliar with their faith, watched in awe and felt a sense of reverence fill her heart.
As she stepped out of the temple, Maya noticed a quiet mosque nearby. The melodious call
to prayer resonated in the air.
She decided to explore further and entered the mosque. Inside, she saw people bowing in
unison, their faces filled with devotion and tranquility.
Maya stood in silence, appreciating the beauty of their rituals.
As Maya continued her journey, she stumbled upon a humble church on a hill. She entered
the peaceful sanctuary and was greeted by the sound of a choir singing hymns. The
atmosphere was serene and filled with a profound sense of love. Maya found herself
swaying to the music, moved by the faith of those around her.
Throughout her journey, Maya visited many other places of worship, encountering people
of different faiths—Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and more. Each time, she encountered
unique rituals, prayers and traditions. Yet, in every sacred space, she felt a common
thread—a deep respect and reverence for the divine.
As Maya returned to her village, she carried with her a newfound understanding. She
realized that although people may have different paths to seek the truth, their ultimate goal
was the same—to connect with something greater than themselves.
Inspired by her experiences, Maya decided to share her journey with the villagers. She
gathered them in the village square and spoke about the beauty and wisdom she had found
in each faith. She emphasized the importance of respecting and cherishing the diversity of
beliefs within their community.
The villagers listened attentively and were moved by Maya's words. They realized that
their differences were not a source of division but an opportunity to learn from one another.
They agreed to come together periodically, sharing their religious practices, stories and
festivals. This would foster a deeper understanding and strengthen the bond among them.
From that day forward, the village became a shining example of harmony and respect. The
villagers celebrated each other's religious festivals with joy and enthusiasm. They attended
each other's ceremonies, learning and appreciating the rituals and traditions of different
faiths.
Maya's journey had taught them the value of respecting and embracing diversity. It had
shown them that by honoring and understanding one another's faiths, they could create a
tapestry of unity, love, and acceptance.
And so, the village thrived, becoming a beacon of tolerance and mutual respect for all who
encountered it—a testament to the power of embracing and honoring other faiths.
Respecting people of other faiths is indeed important and can greatly contribute to our own
spiritual journey. The story teaches us five important gems:
1. Promoting tolerance and understanding: Respecting people of other faiths allows us to foster
an environment of tolerance and understanding. It helps us recognize that there are diverse
perspectives and beliefs in the world, and that no single faith or belief system has a monopoly on
truth. By embracing this understanding, we can build bridges of empathy and compassion,
fostering peaceful coexistence.
2. Expanding our worldview: Engaging with people of different faiths opens our minds to new
ideas, perspectives, and philosophies. It allows us to broaden our understanding of the human
experience and the various ways people find meaning and purpose in their lives. This expansion
of worldview can enrich our own spiritual journey by offering fresh insights, challenging our
assumptions, and encouraging personal growth.
3. Encouraging self-reflection: Respecting people of other faiths prompts us to examine our own
beliefs and values more closely. It invites us to question why we hold certain convictions and
encourages self-reflection. This process can deepen our understanding of our own faith or belief
system, helping us to develop a more nuanced and authentic spiritual path.
4. Fostering spiritual humility: Recognizing and respecting the beliefs of others reminds us that
we do not possess all the answers. It cultivates a sense of humility within us, acknowledging that
there is much we can learn from others. This humility can lead to a more open-minded and
receptive attitude, allowing us to grow spiritually by being receptive to new perspectives and
insights.
Respecting people of other faiths is not about compromising or diluting our own beliefs, but rather
about recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of every individual and their right to hold their
own beliefs. It is about fostering a world where diverse spiritual paths can coexist harmoniously,
contributing to the collective growth and well-being of humanity.
The legal definition of discrimination is the distinction, exclusion, and unequal treatment
of a person or group in comparison to others based on certain characteristics.
Race, color
Ancestry, national origin
Religion, creed
Age (40 and over)
Disability, mental and physical
Sex (including pregnancy discrimination, childbirth, breastfeeding, or related medical
conditions)
Sexual orientation
Gender identity, gender expression
Medical condition
Genetic information
Marital status
Military or veteran status
Now that you know what discrimination is, let's talk about the steps your company can take to
prevent it in the workplace.
Companies' anti-discrimination policies can vary widely depending on their culture and
nature; however, it is important to highlight the employee's right to work in a professional
environment where their skills, abilities, and knowledge are the most important factors in
their success.
The company work policy should have zero tolerance for any form of harassment.
Encourage employees to come forward and participate in the investigation, assuring they
will be kept confidential (to a reasonable extent), and people who make complaints will be
protected at all times.
Having clear procedures and rules established is also a way to make managers and
employees aware of acceptable workplace behavior within your country.
In case of misbehavior, it will be easier to point to the policy than to refer to a law the
employee may not have heard of.
Any employee who feels they have been discriminated against or treated negatively should report
the issue to Human Resources, their direct supervisor, manager, or director, and they should feel
comfortable and safe when doing so.
In these cases, all companies must be consistent in addressing issues through a fair and reasonable
investigation, even if your business is not in legal jeopardy.
This will show your company's expectations of equal and unbiased treatment among all employees.
Solving workplace discrimination issues in a timely manner should be a priority, as otherwise,
trust and credibility may be lost.
An important part of the complaint process is providing effective and transparent communication
channels.
Ideally, have more than one option for employees to report discrimination, which will ensure that
a supervisor cannot hide issues from Human Resources and upper management.
Formal communication channels like an Intranet, emails, letters, or face-to-face interactions are
crucial for the employee to be able to make their complaint, and some even allow anonymous
reports to be made in order to start an investigation.
You can also consider keeping a more informal type of communication, like holding lunchtime
conversations and continuous collaboration among team members where you can identify potential
discriminatory practices that otherwise may go unnoticed.
Unconscious biases are stereotypes that we unintentionally have learned. They have the
ability to affect our behavior and perception of others.
This is an issue that many companies may not have in mind, but a vast body of research
shows that the hiring process is biased and unfair.
This can frustrate diversity, recruiting, promotion, and retention efforts. Awareness
training is the first step to solving unconscious bias in the workplace, as it allows
employees to recognize that everyone possesses them and to identify their own.
It is also recommended to have a standardized interview process by asking candidates the
same set of defined questions that allow employers to focus on the factors that have a direct
impact on performance.
Giving a work sample test can also be a great tool against unconscious bias as it forces
recruiters to critique the quality of a candidate's work versus judging them based on
appearance, gender, age, personality, or disability.
Aside from the awareness training, inclusion training also helps reduce unconscious biases
in the workplace.
Retaliation is the most common workplace discrimination charge and the easiest for an
employee to allege, as well as most challenging for a company to defend.
It is common for an original discrimination charge (other than retaliation) to fail to establish
a violation of the law, but the following retaliation charge will result in an actual
discrimination finding.
Therefore, you should be providing all your management staff with anti-retaliation training
to make sure they have a full understanding of what this entails and how to avoid reactive
behavior once an employee has engaged in the process of a complaint.
We should also keep thorough documentation of the employment actions you take and the
reasons behind them. For example, if you deny someone a promotion, you must have
enough proof of the selection process to show there were valid reasons for you to select
another candidate over that employee.
If that person claims that your denial of promotion was retaliatory, you will have this data
to back you up and avoid further issues.
In addition to these important practices, all companies should also have an Affirmative Action
Plan not only because it's mandatory but it's a sure way to prevent any forms of discrimination in
the workplace.
We can also consider some of these tips for creating a better work environment:
Focus groups
When talking about discrimination, one may immediately think of cases where a person
was denied a job or a promotion for unfair reasons or treated unequally by their direct
supervisor or manager, but we need to keep in mind employees can also be discriminated
against by their co-workers.
In many cases, this includes bullying and harassment.
Instead of immediately getting HR involved, your managerial employees should be fully
qualified to deal with these issues in a prompt and effective manner.
Providing continuous soft skills training can significantly improve their interactions with
subordinates and keep problems like this from escalating to discrimination complaints.
Creating a work environment free of discrimination and harassment is not an easy job, and
it is important that you put in all efforts to eliminate as many gray areas as possible.
As an employer, you may think of a satisfactory salary and numerous other financial
benefits as the ultimate motivational factor for employees.
However, creating a pleasant and affirmative environment should be among your top priorities if
you want to bring productive and happy employees to the organization.
Educating and training all your workers about what constitutes discrimination
Train higher-ups like supervisors and managers on how to properly respond to
discrimination in the workplace
Handle any discrimination complaints confidentially and carefully
Develop a strict workplace policy that does not allow discrimination
Make sure the workplace policy is properly laid out and enforced
Review your organization's policies regularly
This constitutes a step forward in the task of keeping a happy and productive workforce that is
eager to contribute and increase your profit. Additionally, preventing discrimination will avoid
long, complicated investigations, negative impact on company morale and culture, and even high
legal bills.
UNIT-3
SCIENTIFIC VALUES
Scientific thinking and method: Inductive and Deductive thinking, Proposing and testing
Hypothesis, validating facts using evidence-based approach – Skepticism and Empiricism –
Rationalism and Scientific Temper.
The terms ―inductive‖ and ―deductive‖ are often used in logic, reasoning, and science.
Scientists use both inductive and deductive research methods as part of the scientific
method.
Famous fictional detectives like Sherlock Holmes are often associated with deduction, even
though that‘s not always what Holmes does (more on that later). Some writing classes
include both inductive and deductive essays.
But what‘s the difference between inductive vs deductive research? The difference often
lies in whether the argument proceeds from the general to the specific or the specific to the
general.
Both methods are used in different types of research, and it‘s not unusual to use both in
one project. In this article, we‘ll describe each in simple yet defined terms.
Inductive research is a method in which the researcher collects and analyzes data to develop
theories, concepts, or hypotheses based on patterns and observations seen in the data.
It uses a ―bottom-up‖ method in which the researcher starts with specific observations and then
moves on to more general theories or ideas. Inductive research is often used in exploratory studies
or when not much research has been done on a topic before.
1. Observation:
The first step of inductive research is to make detailed observations of the studied phenomenon.
This can be done in many ways, such as through surveys, interviews, or direct observation.
2. Pattern Recognition:
The next step is to look at the data in detail once the data has been collected. This means looking
at the data for patterns, themes, and relationships. The goal is to find insights and trends that can
be used to make the first categories and ideas.
3. Theory Development:
At this stage, the researcher will start to create initial categories or concepts based on the
patterns and themes from the data analysis.
This means putting the data into groups based on their similarities and differences to make
a framework for understanding the thing being studied.
These three steps are often repeated in a cycle, so the researcher can improve their analysis
and understand the phenomenon over time. Inductive research aims to develop new
theories and ideas based on the data rather than testing existing theories, as in deductive
research.
Deductive research is a type of research in which the researcher starts with a theory,
hypothesis, or generalization and then tests it through observations and data collection.
It uses a top-down method in which the researcher starts with a general idea and then tests
it through specific observations. Deductive research is often used to confirm a theory or
test a well-known hypothesis.
Formulation of a hypothesis:
The first step in deductive research is to develop a hypothesis and guess how the variables
are related. Most of the time, the hypothesis is built on theories or research that have already
been done.
The next step is designing a research study to test the hypothesis. This means choosing a
research method, figuring out what needs to be measured, and figuring out how to collect
and look at the data.
Collecting data:
Once the research design is set, different methods, such as surveys, experiments, or
observational studies, are used to gather data. Usually, a standard protocol is used to collect
the data to ensure it is correct and consistent.
Analysis of data:
In this step, the collected data are looked at to see if they support or disprove the hypothesis.
The goal is to see if the data supports or refutes the hypothesis. You need to use statistical
methods to find patterns and links between the variables to do this.
Drawing conclusions:
The last step is drawing conclusions from the analysis of the data. If the hypothesis is
supported, it can be used to make generalizations about the population being studied. If the
hypothesis is wrong, the researcher may need to develop a new one and start the process
again.
The five steps of deductive research are repeated, and researchers may need to return to
earlier steps if they find new information or new ways of looking at things. In contrast to
inductive research, deductive research aims to test theories or hypotheses that have already
been made.
The main differences between inductive and deductive research are how the research is
done, the goal, and how the data is analyzed.
Deductive research, on the other hand, is about proving something and is structured and
based on quantitative analysis.
Here are the main differences between inductive vs deductive research in more detail:
Deductive research is
Inductive research is flexible structured and methodical
and open to new information because it uses a research
because researchers can design and method that
change their theories and have already been decided
Flexible and
hypotheses based on their Structured and upon.
adaptable to
findings. systematic This method starts with a
new findings
This method works best when clear plan for the research,
the research question is making it easier to collect
unclear, or unexpected results and analyze data more
arise. objectively and
consistently.
Inductive research and deductive research are two different types of research with different
starting points, goals, methods, and ways of looking at the data.
Inductive research uses specific observations and patterns to come up with new theories.
On the other hand, deductive research starts with a theory or hypothesis and tests it through
observations.
Both approaches have advantages as well as disadvantages and can be used in different
types of research depending on the question and goals.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables.
It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a
preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.
Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test
performance.
The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-
deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."
A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the
researchers are looking to find.
This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific
knowledge about the world.
This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good
hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.
In the scientific method, whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area,
a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment.1 The scientific
method involves the following steps:
1. Forming a question
2. Performing background research
3. Creating a hypothesis
4. Designing an experiment
5. Collecting data
6. Analyzing the results
7. Drawing conclusions
8. Communicating the results
The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the
hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At
this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.
Unless we are creating an exploratory study, our hypothesis should always explain what
we expect to happen.
In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers
expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In
psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might
influence a particular behavior.
Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what
the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is
right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous
factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.
In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment do not support the
original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other
options that should be explored in future studies.
Hypothesis Format
In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on
previous research.
For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So, a
researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to
contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress
levels."
In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds
of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to
investigate.
The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic
partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."
So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your
research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:
Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once
you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay
attention to the discussion section in the journal articles you read. Many authors will suggest
questions that still need to be explored.
Falsifiability of a Hypothesis
In the scientific method, falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order
to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.
Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that
something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that if something was
false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.
One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or
proven false.
A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are
observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will
be manipulated and measured in the study.
Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This
process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.
For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable "test anxiety" as the
results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits"
variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by
time.
These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various
ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other
researchers can replicate your results.
Replicability
One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be
replicable.
Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results.
By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated,
other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.
Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you
operationally define a variable such as aggression? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers
cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.
To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses
aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task
to measure aggressiveness in this situation.
Hypothesis Checklist
Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
Can you manipulate the variables?
Hypothesis Types
The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the
main types of hypotheses that you might use include:
Simple hypothesis: This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one
independent variable and one dependent variable.
Complex hypothesis: This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables,
such as two independent and dependent variables.
Null hypothesis: This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more
variables.
Alternative hypothesis: This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
Statistical hypothesis: This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative
population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
Logical hypothesis: This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without
collecting data or evidence.
Hypotheses Examples
A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}."
One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the dependent
variable if you change the independent variable.
The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable},
then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."
"Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not
eat breakfast."
"Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than
students who do not experience test anxiety."
"Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a
driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
"Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than
students who do not receive the intervention."
"People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop
depression."
"Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective
well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."
"There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort
supplements and those who do not."
"There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
"There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter
games and those who do not."
"People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do
not."
"Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
"Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than
children who do not."
Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and
start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There
are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.
Descriptive research such as case studies, naturalistic observations, and surveys are often
used when conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible.5 These methods are best
used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.
Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a correlational study can
examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate
a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.
From this position, we argue that policing might renegotiate its difficult relationship with
the particular, recasting it from something uncomfortably discretionary (the maverick cop)
and shameful (an individualized blame culture) into something that underpins and enhances
police professionalism.
While developed in a policing context, these reflections have a broader relevance for
questions of professional legitimacy and credibility, especially within the ‗new
professions‘, and the costs of privileging any one type of understanding over others.
EBP in policing
Within policing, the EBP debate is especially lively. In the UK, the case for EBP is often
connected with the police professionalism agenda, where this is understood to refer to the
codification of practice, the value and prestige of externally-recognized qualifications, and
evaluation of performance based on standards established and supported by research
(Brown et al., 2018; Green and Gates, 2014).
It is associated with the establishment in 2012 of the College of Policing, which is seen ‗as
the ―what works?‖ clearing house for ―policing and crime‖.
More skeptical voices argue that a narrow focus on ‗what works misrepresents the breadth
of policing and the many ways in which police decisions both influence and are influenced
by the values of society in general and individual community dynamics in particular.
Greene suggests that the ‗why‘ questions in policing are especially complex, involving
legal, regulatory, cultural, geographical, political, psychological and many other factors;
and ‗as a consequence, answers to the questions of ―why‖ in policing are rarely singular.
Therefore, when EBP is narrowly equated with methods hierarchies and the so-called ‗gold
standard‘ of the randomized control trial it can only reflect a sub-set of police functions
and activities.
It might be effective for evaluating crime-reduction initiatives, but it has less to contribute
to the moral, ethical and psychological aspects of policing, such as its function as container
for society‘s unresolved anxieties, neuroses and value conflicts.
Methods
For this project, the topic of EBP was identified as a key research question during the initial
scoping study; but the specific focus of the work we present here results from working
iteratively between theoretical and empirical domains and between the letter and the spirit
of organizational practice.
In the section below, we present our findings on how EBP is being understood and enacted
in practice. Sometimes these findings arise through direct questioning (e.g. ‗what does the
idea of ―learning from the best available evidence‖ mean to you?‘).
At other times, they emerge more naturalistically and inductively, highlighting patterns of
association and evaluation in our participants‘ own frames of reference. We focus in
particular on working definitions of the key concepts of ‗what works‘, ‗learning from
evidence of what works‘, ‗learning from the evidence‘, ‗learning from the best available
evidence‘ and, to a lesser extent, ‗what matters.
Skepticism is a more interrogative approach that casts immediate doubt on the proposed
reasoning and always assumes there is more to be learned than that which has already been
revealed. Skeptics also consider the strong possibility for deception and misleading information
while naturally seeking the true information in these and all cases.
Skepticism is also concerned with the boundaries of human knowledge or the existence of
information in general, while it is also slow to form decisions and is even patient in doing so
when there is a clear lack of data. One of the most important parts of philosophy with regards
to skepticism is to first consider the conditions where skepticism is the best viewpoint to assume.
For those that call themselves skeptics, of course, this is not a decision that is to be made.
Ultimately, there is no best answer. Each view has its strong points, as empiricism relates to the
human experience in attempt to best relate information, rationalism seeks for the best reasoning,
and skepticism does its best to remove faulty methods of thinking and generally bad or untrue
information.
Each strength is useful, and one cannot say one is best without ignoring critical aspects of
another. Knowledge is a broad subject that must be approached from many angles, and none of
these viewpoints are significantly better than the other as an all-purpose solution to assimilating
information.
Key Difference: Empiricism and Skepticism are two different concepts that have primarily to do
with belief. Empiricism refers to the concept that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory
experience. Skepticism refers to someone who doubts the authenticity or veracity of something.
Empiricism and Skepticism are two different concepts that have primarily to do with belief.
Both are philosophies that deal with finding out the truth.
However, they differ in the manner in which they look for and deal with the information
or knowledge presented to them. Yet, they are more similar than more people realize.
Empiricism is a philosophical concept. The term derives from the Greek word, ‗empeiria‘,
which translates to the Latin ‗experiential‘.
This in turn leads to the words ‗experience‘ and the related ‗experiment‘ in English. Hence,
empiricism refers to the concept that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory
experience, i.e. the five senses.
According to empiricism, all knowledge is derived from what we observe and experience
in the world around us. If we cannot see it, experience it, or prove it, it does not exist.
The term skepticism has taken up place in common parlance. Here, it typically refers to
someone who doubts the authenticity or veracity of something.
For example: Adam is skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet. However, that is not
exactly what the term means originally in the context of philosophy.
The term skepticism comes from the classical Greek verb, ‗skeptomai‘, which basically
means "to search", the implication being searching, but not finding.
Hence, there are people out there that claim that skepticism, at least in its original context,
has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity, but rather is about searching for the
truth. It is the process of ‗finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a
preconceived conclusion.‘
It can be said that it is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine
validity of something, even if it is taken by fact by the public.
So, in summary, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily
from sensory experience, which means that it emphasis proving something as fact either
by experience or by experiment before believing it as fact. Skepticism, on the other hand,
doubts the veracity of something and search for the truth.
Looking their definitions, it can be said that the two terms have a lot more in common that
they are often given credit for.
While the terminology or process might differ, both empiricism and skepticism at their
core are methods to look for or search for the truth.
However, the way in which they approach to the truth differs, empiricism looks at
experience, experimentation, and evidence to prove that something is true, while
skepticism doubts everything until it is proven otherwise.
Additionally, empiricism is also commonly associated with science and research, and has
directly culminated into the scientific method which requires that everything be first proven
though a strict scientific process that can be replicated before it is accepted as fact.
Skepticism, on the other hand, is associated with various other fields, for example: moral
skepticism, religious skepticism, skepticism of knowledge, etc.
In each regard, it refers to doubting concepts in that field, such as moral skepticism doubts
morality, religious skepticism doubts the existence of God, while skepticism of knowledge
doubts the nature of knowledge.
There is also a field referred to as scientific skepticism that doubts testing beliefs for reliability
and requires them to be subjected to systematic investigation using the scientific method, in order
to discover empirical evidence for them.
Empiricism Skepticism
Morality, Religious,
Related Fields Science, Research, IT
Knowledge, Science, Research
There is a popular misconception that rationalism is just a denial of the existence of god
and religion in any form. Rationalists are not just propagandists of atheism or crusaders
against god. That is a negative view of rationalism.
But rationalism is of positive attitude to do good to human beings by promoting ethics,
self-knowledge, self-discipline and self-development.
Rationalism is a battle to liberate humanity from ignorance, religious prejudice and
superstition. Its main business is to make the discovered truths available to all and induce
everybody to draw his own rational conclusions about the meaning, purpose and conduct
of life.
The accepted definition of rationalism evolved as early as 1899 is:- It is the mental attitude,
that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason, and aims at establishing a system of
philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience and independent of all arbitrary assumptions
of authority.
Was it to do so, it would be attempting to impose the same sort of official authority as the
churches and to discharge the free exercise of Individual reason?
Its proper business is to make the discovered truth available to all and to induce everybody
to draw his own rational conclusions about the meaning, the purpose and conduct of life.
Late D.M.K. Chief Annadurai says: ―Rationalism does not mean repudiation of basic or
fundamental truths and maxims, but the annihilation of dubious modes of thought and
action‖.
Rationalism is not a system or a faith or a creed ready to be handled like a measuring rod.
It is an attitude of mind. It is a movement of ideas.
It is not an academic exercise indulged by the learned few. It is concerned with the people
and community in all its aspects. Its task is to show the approach of reason to all problems
of individual and his social life. It lays down the foundation of a new philosophy of life.
It provides an alternative way of life and/ or philosophy for those who desire to throw away
orthodox religion and morals based on fear of god. It is not a creed or set of dogmas,
religious or philosophical.
Its main task is the diffusion of sound knowledge. Since rationalism is mainly an attitude
of mind, continuance of that attitude is essential to sustain efforts required for rationalists
to keep abreast of the growth of knowledge, for that alone will prevent rationalism from
getting rusty and unserviceable.
The values that rationalism gathers are not permanent for all time to come.
It calls for a constant and vigilant recasting of morals and other values to suit the changing
pattern of society.
It is a quest for truth and social reform. Rationalism and humanism are a realistic alternative
to theology.
It stands for belief in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in
place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, tolerance in place of fear, love instead of hatred,
compassion over selfishness, reason over blind faith. Rationalist propaganda is the only
solution to liquidate blind faith.
Rationalism aims at the development of potentialities of the individual with freedom and
independence.
Its endeavor is to achieve the ideal of social freedom and to create a new renaissance.
Its main objective is to liberate human thought from the limitations of caste, creed, religion,
and nationality.
Rationalism promotes an attitude of optimism, which helps to develop healthy and dynamic
minds to overcome any crisis.
It emphasizes the dignity and work of man as man and his potential capacity to build a
peaceful, decent world where there is no exploitation of man and where hunger, poverty
and racial prejudices do not exist.
Aristotle was the first philosopher who defined man as a rational being. He taught that
rationality differentiates man from animal.
Animals act from instinct while human beings are endowed with the faculty of reasoning,
which governs their conduct and action. Rationalism regards reason as the chief source and
test of knowledge.
Rationalism holds reason to be a faculty that can lay hold of truth, beyond the reach of
sense perception.
The Caste-based social system has assigned a hierarchical position to each caste and the
result of this feeling of superiority and inferiority based on birth have been deeply
embedded in the minds of the people.
This in turn has led to the disappearance of the spirit of brotherhood, oneness, and
comradeship in our society.
It emphasizes that, every human being is entitled to equality of status and equality of
opportunity in every sphere of life irrespective of his caste or creed.
It wages a war on the false theory of superiority and inferiority attached to birth, and
declares that the unjust social order of caste must go in the interest of social justice and
human solidarity.
Rationalism can effectively take up the creation of a new social order without caste.
Religious fundamentalism in India today displays the most incendiary form of intolerance
towards other religions.
A man of understanding can never be aggressive in his thought or action. Religious bigotry
or religious intolerance has no place in the minds of rationalists.
If the doors, windows, ventilators of our brain are allowed to open, there will be free flow
of thoughts and then we will think freely.
First, we should make people think. When they think, they start questioning; when they
start questioning reasoning commences.
One tries to get answers. Newton could give us the theory of gravitational pull by
questioning why an apple falls down on the ground instead of going up.
Great thinkers like Periyar, Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell and others have not accepted
anything for granted.
They questioned every statement with a probing mind and realized the truth that there
cannot be any supernatural power called ‗god‘.
―Reason is the light, the sun of the brain. It is the compass of the mind, the ever constant
northern star, the mountain peak that lifts itself above all clouds‖.
Any man who stands for progress has to criticize, disbelieve and challenge every item of
the old faith.
A man who claims to be a realist has to challenge the whole of the ancient faith. Item by
item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing faith. Reasoning is the
guiding star of one‘s life.
Mere faith and blind faith is dangerous. It dulls the brain and makes a man reactionary.
Here is what Shaheed Bhagat Singh says, ―Study was the cry that reverberated in the
corridors of my mind, study to enable yourself to face the arguments advanced by the
opposition. Study to arm yourself with arguments in favour of your cult.
When reasoning commences, man arrives at the conclusion that the so-called holy books
are not sacred. He no more considers them as holy.
He no more considers them as containing the knowledge revealed by certain chosen men
of god, Prophets or god‘s son or his angels in the language known to them.
He no more considers that these chosen men are god‘s men or so-called prophets are chosen
by god.
He comes to know that they are all utterances of so-called god‘s men or prophets in their
delusion or trance and written by human beings at various stages, at various thinking levels.
Most of them are mystics. Saint Paul was one, Mohammed another, Chaitanya was yet
another, Dostoveski a fourth, Ramakrishna a fifth and the list can easily be made much
longer.
He will come to the conclusion that religions are creations of human imagination.
With the view to making people non-skeptic, the so-called holy men and their henchmen
propagated that they contain sacred knowledge revealed by god, and therefore not subject
to questioning.
Most religions of the world do not want reason. Everyman should be allowed to investigate
to the extent of his desire and his ability. There is no real investigation without freedom
from the fear of gods and men.
Rationalism is fundamentally the tendency of human beings to ask questions and look for
solutions to the different aspects of reality.
It places a lot of focus on applying logic to evaluate facts and concepts. Rationality is
applied in the majority of domains of life.
Although there are many various views on what rationality is? It is widely accepted that it
is the capacity to learn from the failures and successes of the past.
Rationality is the result of a critical mind. Being rational requires the ability to think
critically.
It is the capacity to assess a claim, viewpoint, or ideas critically and decide if it is true or
false. Rationality requires a logical mind and the capacity for critical thought.
Scientific temperament enables people to raise the question of what exists in the universe.
Scientific invention, discovery and exploration are all the outcome of human rationality.
Rationalism is the very fundamental essence of humanity.
When the light of rationality illuminates the human brain, intellectualism takes birth. The
rise of rationalism is the renaissance which happened during the 14th to 17th century in
Europe.
Following the Middle Ages, Europe had a passionate era of cultural, artistic, political, and
economic "rebirth" during the Renaissance.
The Renaissance, often seen as occurring between the 14th and the 17th centuries, fostered
the rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature, and art.
The Renaissance was basically the rise of rationalism. Every intellectual perspective
became more visible under the illumination of rationalism.
Article 51 A(h), of the Fundamental Duties (FDs) which was introduced in the Indian
constitution in the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act,1976. It is the responsibility of
every Indian citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and
reform. The spirit of inquiry is basically promoting rationalism in human beings.
If we want to know the reality of the universe or cosmos, then our approach should be
rational. The truths about who we are, the world we live in, and the cosmos may be
discovered if we think logically and rationally.
Truth and reason go hand in hand. It is not possible to imagine one exist without the other.
Rationality is continually looking for reality, and reality can only be found in the light of
rationality.
The Indian legal system is based on the principle of rationality. Judges attempt to make
judgements based on evidence rather than preconceived notions, emotions, and sentiments.
Rationality serves as the standard by which reality is evaluated.
Rationality is continually trying to give truth the upper hand and truth is real. Thus, what
is rational is also real, and vice versa.
Rational people may attain their life objectives by having the ability to control their
thoughts and conduct.
They have the self-control to avoid engaging in unhealthy life habits such as drinking
alcohol or disordered eating, and they are able to make rational judgments without letting
their emotions affect them.
A logical mind constantly thinks calmly, attentively, and objectively. It may be said that
everyone with a rational mind has this as their ultimate goal.
If you consistently participate in rational thinking, you can base your conclusions on facts
and evidence. Using reason, you can recognize bad conceptions and practices.
We may better comprehend ourselves and those of others who surround us by using rational
thought.
It can also help us succeed since we can comprehend realities regarding true desires instead
of becoming sidetracked or behaving unreasonably. Although full objectivity will never
exist, logical thought is still possible.
Rational people refrain from making mistakes they'll later regret. They frequently make
sound decisions because they thoroughly consider all of their possibilities.
Rational individuals have unique and clear views on the purpose and vision of life.
Arguments need to possess the quality of truthfulness.
A belief possesses the quality of truth when it accords with reality. Similar to this, it is
asserted that a belief is false when it is inconsistent with reality.
To determine what is right and what is not, one must exercise rationality.
However, reason and the application of reason also lead to truth. While we may experience
some of the truths that exist both inside and outside of us, these truths are not reliant on our
understanding or our capacity to perceive them.
The truth exists without our intervention. We can comprehend things because we can think
about them rationally.
The seeker of truth cannot ignore the search for reason because finding based on emotions
and our feelings generally ignores reality and truth.
The ideal circumstance is one in which you are free to choose solely what is best for you,
without taking into account the repercussions or any other factors. When we are logical,
we may draw conclusions that are in our own best interests.
When we act impulsively, our judgments typically reflect our emotions instead of reality
or reason. We can end up making poor decisions about our finances or even our
interpersonal relationships as a result of this.
As a result of their illogical behavior, this can cause them to make one poor decision, which
might cause them to experience financial insecurity.
Conceptual clarity and basic information bring the ability to think and make decisions
rationally.
Poor financial choices frequently lock people in a cycle of poverty where they are unable
to advance because they continue to spend more than they bring in.
People who get into this debt trap frequently end themselves in even more debt because
they use credit cards and other types of credit to pay off debts from earlier purchases while
acting irrationally, which causes them to slip into the debt trap.
The rational is real, and the real is rational. Both reality and rationality are true. It very
clearly signifies how reason and reality both complement one another.
Considering that there are two viewpoints on truth, real and rational. Both viewpoints come
to the same conclusion: both reality and reason are true.
UNIT-IV
Social Ethics
Social Ethics:
Social ethics is the systematic reflection on the moral dimensions of social structures,
systems, issues, and communities.
It involves the application of ethical reasoning to social problems, addressing issues such
as the distribution of economic goods, research on human subjects, animal rights,
euthanasia, abortion, discrimination and affirmative action, pornography, crime and
punishment, and war and peace.
Social ethics examines problematic social conditions, analyzes possible actions to address
these conditions, and prescribes solutions based on ethical norms and values.
It can be understood as both focusing on the policies and practices of social institutions and
recognizing the influence of social contexts on individual moral choices.
Social ethics is the systematic reflection on the moral dimensions of social structures,
systems, issues, and communities.
Social ethics can be thought of as the application of ethical reasoning to social problems,
such as the distribution of economic goods, euthanasia, abortion, discrimination, crime and
punishment, and war and peace.
Social ethicists study social conditions, analyze options for addressing problems found in
those conditions, and prescribe solutions for resolving those problems.
Gender bias is the tendency to give preferential treatment to one gender over another.
It is a form of unconscious bias, which occurs when someone unconsciously attributes
certain attitudes and stereotypes to a group of people.
Bias is prevalent in every aspect of our lives. Our brains are hardwired to categorize things
we encounter in order to make sense of the complicated world around us.
However, biases can cause us to form prejudices against others, which allows for egregious
inequalities to form between different demographics.
While bias comes in many forms, this article focuses on gender bias and its role within the
workplace.
We‘ll cover what it is, where and when it happens, along with 14 ways you can reduce
gender bias and ultimately build a more diverse and inclusive workplace.
It should be noted that, while there is a spectrum of gender identities, due to constraints
within existing literature we‘ll focus on the gender binary of men and women.
Gender bias is the tendency to prefer one gender over another. It is a form of unconscious
bias, or implicit bias, which occurs when one individual unconsciously attributes certain
attitudes and stereotypes to another person or group of people.
These biases can affect how the individual understands and engages with others.
In today‘s society, gender bias is often used to refer to the preferential treatment men
receive specifically white, heterosexual men. It‘s often labeled as sexism and describes the
prejudice against women solely on the basis of their sex.
Gender bias is most prominently visible within professional settings.
Another term often used interchangeably with gender bias is gender discrimination, which
is the unequal treatment of a person or group of people because of gender-based prejudice.
In addition to gender bias, there are a number of other types of unconscious bias that
disproportionately affect women‘s success in the workplace, which include:
Performance support bias occurs when employers, managers and colleagues provide more
resources and opportunities to one gender (typically men) over another.
One study found that, among sales employees — who are paid based on performance and
commission women are unfairly assigned inferior accounts compared to men, even though
women have proven to produce the same results when given equivalent sales opportunities.
Performance review bias occurs when employers, managers and colleagues review an
employee of one gender differently from another gender — even when the evaluations are
purely merit-based.
Harvard Business Review found that performance evaluations are inherently biased, even
when companies make an effort to remove bias by making them open-ended. In fact,
without structure to evaluations, people are more likely to review an individual on the basis
of stereotypes related to gender and race than reviewing individuals based on merit.
Performance reward bias occurs when employers, managers and colleagues reward an
employee of one gender differently from another gender. Rewards may be in the form of
promotions, raises or other merit-based rewards.
While it may seem like rewarding individuals on merit would help eliminate gender bias,
it‘s not as cut-and-dry as you think.
One study found that when women and minorities receive the same exact performance
evaluation score as white men for the same job and work unit, they receive lower pay
increases than white men.
Glass Ceiling
A major result of these biases have contributed to the creation of the glass ceiling. The
glass ceiling is a metaphor for the evident but intangible hierarchical impediment that
prevents minorities and women from achieving elevated professional success.
Due to contributing factors, like the aforementioned types of bias, women and minorities
experience a barrier that prevents them from reaching upper-level roles in leadership and
the C-suite.
With the basics of gender bias down, let‘s review some statistics to see where and how
such biases affect women in the workplace.
To further illustrate the role gender bias plays in the office, we‘ve gathered a number of statistics
related to diversity and gender bias in the workplace:
When it comes down to it, gender bias can happen at all stages of recruiting, hiring and retaining
employees. In this section, we‘re going to break down some key areas where gender bias affects
candidates and their careers.
Throughout the recruiting process, there can be traces of gender bias, starting with where
and how you recruit candidates.
Looking for a job after graduating college, Erin McKelvey didn‘t receive a single response
from employers. When she changed her name from Erin (historically a feminine name) to
Mack (considered a more masculine name) on her resume, she received a 70 percent
response rate.
Additionally, employers may unconsciously (or consciously) place open roles on platforms
with predominantly male candidates or actively target men through ads. Aside from being
unethical, know that this is also illegal.
When interviews are not standardized, the questions interviewers ask can be biased based
on the candidate‘s personality, experiences and even gender.
One study found that hiring managers tend to ask male candidates to perform more math-
based interview tests and female candidates more verbal interview tests.
Hiring managers are also more likely to ask female candidates about parental plans and
responsibilities. While discriminating against parents and pregnant people is illegal, asking
questions about a candidate‘s parental status technically isn‘t illegal.
One study found that when candidates were assessed separately by individual hiring
managers, 51 percent of managers were influenced by the candidate‘s gender and selected
the under-performing candidate.
However, when candidates were evaluated by a hiring team together, gender didn‘t affect
their decision, they simply hired the highest performing candidate.
Additionally, during the interview, hiring managers tend to ask more targeted questions
about a female candidate‘s leadership abilities and unconsciously prefer more masculine
leadership styles.
It‘s clear that gender biases play a significant role in women‘s ability to excel in their
careers and reach upper level roles.
It also doesn‘t help that 60 percent of male managers have said they are
uncomfortable mentoring, socializing with or working one-on-one with female employees.
In order to achieve upper-level positions, however, it is highly beneficial for individual
contributors to have a mentor supporting them throughout their career.
One survey revealed employees at every income level who had a mentor were more likely
to be satisfied with their jobs compared to those who did not participate in mentorship.
And for non-white women between the ages of 45 and 54, 95 percent of those who had a
mentor reported satisfaction with their job compared to 82 percent of those without a
mentor.
Employees with mentors are also more likely to report that their employer gave them
opportunities to advance their careers.
The gender pay gap is no joke. PayScale‘s Gender Pay Gap Report shows women make 83
cents for every dollar man make, which the salary platform company refers to as the
―uncontrolled gender pay gap.‖
The ―controlled gender pay gap‖ compares men and women with the same jobs and
qualifications. That metric shows women making 99 cents for every dollar man earn.
While those numbers are substantially closer, the PayScale report argues, ―This is equal
pay for equal work. The gap should be zero.‖
When considering the gender pay gap, you must account for the fact that more women are
segregated to lower-level jobs in low-paying industries and are unable to obtain upper-
level roles due to biases and the glass ceiling.
These disparities in opportunities, prevent women from excelling in their career and
inhibits their ability to make the same amount as men.
At every stage of their careers, women face barriers that place them at a disadvantage for
career opportunities, mentorships, promotions and pay raises.
The perks and benefits companies offer can significantly contribute to gender bias and
opportunity discrepancies between genders.
This is especially true when it comes to benefits for working parents since women are
typically assigned to act as the primary caregiver of children, which has led to
a motherhood penalty.
More than 80 percent of U.S. workers believe putting working mothers in leadership
positions leads to greater success, according to a Bright Horizons survey.
Just over 90 percent also agree mothers have unique skills they can bring to leadership.
The Bright Horizons survey also revealed 41 percent of workers view mothers as being
less committed to their jobs and 38 percent judge them for needing flexible schedules.
Of working parents surveyed, 72 percent said ―women are penalized in their careers for
starting families, while men are not.‖
For working fathers, paid paternity leave is less likely to be offered by employers than
maternity leave. And when the benefit is offered by companies, 23 percent of men are not
taking parental leave at all.
There is still a strong stigma that suggests taking parental leave will harm one‘s career,
which is a serious concern to 63 percent of men.
While both men and women experience sexual harassment, nearly 78.2 percent of EEOC
sexual harassment charges between fiscal years 2018 and 2021 were filed by women.
A staggering 70 percent of women who experience sexual harassment, experience it in the
workplace.
A 2022 Deloitte survey found that 14 percent of 5,000 women from 10 countries who
responded had been harassed at work.
More than 40 percent of these instances of ―unwanted physical advances or repeated
disparaging comments‖ went unreported, with embarrassment identified as the top reason
for not speaking up. Less than a quarter of the women surveyed said their employer had ―a
clear process for reporting discrimination and harassment.‖
Whether women decide to start over somewhere else or risk retaliation from addressing the issue,
they are at a constant risk of harming their careers after being sexually harassed.
Close to 60 percent of women who responded to a 2020 survey said they had experienced
discrimination based on their race or gender or obstacles to getting jobs that pay more.
That same survey also showed ―roughly half of women who identify as Black and Latinx do not
have enough money right now to pay for their basic needs.‖.
Both demographic groups were the least confident they were being paid equally at work.
The pay gap is broadest for women who identify as American Indian and Alaska Native, according
to Payscale. They earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by white men.
That‘s followed by Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander women who make 78 cents,
Hispanic women who make 79 cents and Black or African American women who make 80 cents
for every dollar white men make.
One example of unconscious gender bias is the fact that men interrupt 33 percent more
often when they speak with women compared to when they speak with men, according to
a George Washington University study.
This behavior can lead to situations where a woman‘s voice is not amplified as well as her
male counterparts and she will be more likely to be dismissed.
Women may also find themselves in a situation where after voicing an idea to minimal
fanfare, they hear that same idea amplified by a male co-worker to greater praise.
Now that we know where to look for gender bias in the workplace, let‘s tackle some ways to
actively reduce biases and create a more diverse and inclusive workplace.
Start by collecting data about your employee demographics. Look at disparities between men and
women by department, seniority and retention. You may also consider publishing this
information on your careers page to remain transparent with your entire company and to hold your
team accountable for moving the needle toward becoming an entirely gender diverse and equal
opportunity employer.
Conduct regular pay audits to identify how men and women are paid and promoted differently.
Consider both the adjusted and unadjusted pay gaps that we talked about earlier in this article.
Also, it may behoove you to publish your findings for the entire company to see or even on your
careers page. One survey found women who said their employer had implemented pay
transparency earned between $1 and $1.01 on average for every $1 a man earned.
Employee engagement surveys are a great way to gather more data about your team and identify
trends in how your employees engage in their work. Keep in mind that in order to obtain the best,
most unfiltered responses, you‘ll want to keep these surveys anonymous.
If your teams are small and not highly gender diverse, you may not want to ask for personal
information like job title or even gender because if there‘s only one woman with a specific role on
the team, she will be easily identifiable.
Additionally, you may want to implement perception surveys, which focus on the safety of your
employees.
Anonymous surveys like this provide an opportunity for employees to share experiences they‘ve
encountered, like sexual harassment or gender bias, that may not have been addressed in standard
employee engagement surveys.
To reduce gender bias in your recruiting process, start by looking at the language you use. You
can use a gender decoder tool to identify biased language in your job descriptions. You could also
plug in recruitment content from emails, interview questions and employer branding materials for
social media and your careers page.
Make sure to attract enough great candidates, having at least two women in the finalist pool has
been shown to improve a woman‘s chance of being hired by 79 times.
One simple way to reduce gender bias in your recruiting process is to invest in recruitment
tools that utilize automation or artificial intelligence to make decisions.
Not only will this save time during the initial screening process, but it will help filter through
candidates based on merit rather than gender or other characteristics that may place them at a
biased and unfair disadvantage.
However, it is also important to note that artificial intelligence is a type of machine learning, so
over time, if human biases are introduced, artificial intelligence can learn and perpetuate those
biases, so take precautions when using such technology to reduce bias early on.
Sure, biases are a simple fact of life, but that doesn‘t mean they are set in stone. The best way to
reduce unconscious gender bias is to learn about it and take action to alter your perception of biases
for the better.
Start by informing your team of the different types of unconscious bias and then look for diversity
and inclusion professionals or unconscious bias programs near you that will support your efforts
with regular training.
To provide all of your employees with equal opportunities, create a standardized mentoring
process. Although 76 percent of people said they consider mentorship to be important, less than
half actually have a mentor. More than 90 percent of people who have mentors say they‘re satisfied
with their jobs.
If a mentor program doesn‘t quite work for your team, consider partnering with an e-mentoring
program to connect your employees with professionals outside of your company.
Leadership training should be mandatory for everyone growing in their careers to ensure they
know how to manage and lead teams, which is often a skill set that needs to be learned.
Such training is essential to reducing gender bias, closing the gender wage gap and breaking the
glass ceiling.
It will also help both men and women become better mentors for females earlier in their careers.
To reach gender equality, fill the pay gap and break the glass ceiling, companies need to
proactively provide women with leadership and professional development opportunities.
When you‘re implementing a new project, make sure you‘re bringing together a diverse team with
a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences to tackle it. One study found that gender diverse
teams are 73 percent better at decision making than teams that are all men.
When you review the perks and benefits you offer, bring your entire team in on the
conversation. Provide them an opportunity to share honest feedback on the benefits they
wish your team had and the benefits that would draw them to another company.
If you have a young company, employees may value parental leave benefits, whereas if
your employees are later in their careers, they may care more about retirement benefits.
Having these conversations will help you invest in benefits that will actually support your
employee‘s work-life balance.
Additionally, parental leave brings a wealth of benefits, including boosting retention
rates, reducing the ‗motherhood penalty,‘ as well as improving morale at work.
And when it comes to parental leave, it‘s important to include working fathers and
encourage them to actually take the leave.
One study found for every month a man takes parental leave, women‘s salaries increase
correspondingly by 7 percent, helping to further close the gender pay gap.
Believe it or not, your physical office space can play a role in how men and women interact
in the workplace.
Certain office designs have even been found to be more or less inclusive for different
demographics.
In industries that have been dominated by men, oftentimes, there aren‘t even bathrooms
for women.
Many companies also do not offer a mother‘s room, forcing working moms to breastfeed
in the bathroom or other places that are less than welcoming and unhygienic.
Beyond managerial or even C-level leadership positions, companies also need to take a
hard look at their board of directors.
As of 2022, 28.2 percent of global boardroom seats were held by women. Though there
have been steps taken to change this there is still a lot of work to do.
A study performed at UC Berkeley Haas School of Business showed that, ―Companies
with more women on their board of directors are more likely to be companies that have
programs, guidelines, and clear policies to avoid corrupt business dealings, have strong
partnerships and have high levels of disclosure and transparency.‖
If you‘re looking for ways to build a more diverse and transparent workplace and business,
appointing more women to your board of directors is a perfect place to start.
Review your nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies, and make sure this
information is included in job descriptions, employee handbooks and your careers page.
In addition to your policies, provide employees with information and resources on who to
reach out to in different situations.
Include clear steps for what is going to happen so people know what to expect when they
file a complaint.
One way to help reduce gender bias is to standardize hiring processes, and in some cases,
remove the individual‘s name from the evaluation process entirely (such as when reviewing
resumes of potential candidates.)
When performing interviews, whether for a new hire or an internal promotion, all
candidates should be asked the same questions, with responses assigned numerical ratings
based on predetermined criteria.
Defining clear thresholds for performance management helps standardize expectations
across the organization as well.
Setting standards for all processes at any organization provides a benchmark for every
employee to work up to and reduces cases of less-qualified employees being rewarded over
high performers.
Gender violence:
It can include violence against women, domestic violence against women, men or children living
in the same domestic unit. Although women and girls are the main victims of GBV, it also causes
severe harm to families and communities.
Domestic violence includes all acts of physical, sexual, psychological and economic
violence that occur within the family, domestic unit, or between intimate partners.
These can be former or current spouses also when they don‘t share the same residence. 22
% of all women who have (had) a partner has experienced physical and/or sexual violence
by a partner since the age of 15.
Sex-based harassment includes unwelcome verbal, physical or other non-verbal conduct of
a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person. Between
45% to 55% of women in the EU have experienced sexual harassment since the age of 15.
EU law defines sex-based harassment and prohibits its practice. Find out more about the
principle of equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
The principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of
goods and services.
The principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-
employed capacity.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the
external female genitalia.
It violates women‘s bodies and often damages their sexuality, mental health, well-being
and participation in their community. It may even lead to death.
Today, more than 200 million girls and women alive worldwide have undergone female
genital mutilation. At least 600,000 women living in the EU have undergone FGM.
Forced marriage refers to marriage concluded under force or coercion – either physical
pressure to marry or emotional and psychological pressure.
It‘s closely linked to child or early marriage, when children are wed before reaching the
minimum age for marriage.
Online violence is an umbrella term used to describe all sorts of illegal or harmful behaviors
against women in the online space.
They can be linked to experiences of violence in real life, or be limited to the online
environment only.
They can include illegal threats, stalking or incitement to violence, unwanted, offensive or
sexually explicit emails or messages, sharing of private images or videos without consent,
This kind of targeted violence is rooted in systemic gender inequality and can be physical,
sexual, economic, or psychological. It can look like a child undergoing female genital
mutilation, a student assaulted in her dorm, or a stay-at-home mom restricted from
accessing financial resources.
The statistics on GBV are bleak. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 1 in 3 women worldwide will experience physical or
sexual abuse in her lifetime. In 2020, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that, on
average, a girl or woman is killed by someone in her own family every 11 minutes.
While GBV remains a universal plague for girls and women, their collective power to help
one another and overcome cannot be overlooked.
In every corner of the world, groups led by women are organizing, listening to, and
supporting survivors of GBV while tackling gender inequality in their own communities.
And in most cases, they‘re doing so with extremely limited resources. Because most
grassroots organizations rely on volunteers and project-based funding, operational costs
are rarely covered by donations or grants.
This financial uncertainty ultimately endangers the sustainability and impact of this vital,
lifesaving work. A recent report on global philanthropy and feminist movements found that
Social Discrimination:
Social discrimination appears to be lodged in the system and, therefore, can be pervasive
and intrusive, and stop people from reaching their full potential and, more importantly,
labelling them changes their identities.
Micro-identities related to race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, and other
components all get trumped by the label of being mentally ill.
Social discrimination is defined as sustained inequality between individuals on the basis of
illness, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or any other measures of diversity.
Social justice is aimed at promoting a society which is just and equitable, valuing diversity,
providing equal opportunities to all its members, irrespective of their disability, ethnicities,
gender, age, sexual orientation or religion, and ensuring fair allocation of resources and
support for their human rights. Any number of diverse factors, including those mentioned
above, but also education, social class, political affiliation, beliefs, or other characteristics
can lead to discriminatory behaviors, especially by those who may have a degree of power
in their hands.
Stigma is a prejudiced attitude and is readily applied to people with mental illness
(especially to those with severe and serious mental illness such as schizophrenia and
bipolar disorders), and widespread insidious and pervasive stigma leads to discriminatory
attitudes and practices.
Stigma can also explain widespread negative attitudes and behaviors, as well as negative
cognitions and structures which create and perpetuate inequities.
Social justice means that all institutions—structures as well as processes should be freely
and equally accessible and available to all individuals, irrespective of their characteristics.
Laws and legal institutions must ensure that equal opportunity be provided for education,
learning, earning, and living.
Social justice is the basis of equal and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities
in which outside factors that categorize people are irrelevant. Although traditionally the
term targeted poverty elimination, it has come to take on a wider meaning wherein social
institutions have to take on a wider role to ensure equity of resources.
It can be argued that all governments have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that
all its citizens have equal rights, opportunities, and resources.
In most countries around the globe, for example, categories of gender are not used for
discrimination on a legal basis, but sexual orientation, race, and religion are often employed
to base discrimination on.
According to Rawls social justice is about fairness. Justice also depends upon giving
individuals capability, which in this case will be ‗capability to be healthy‘. Rawls suggests
fair equality of opportunity.
Daniels criticizes Rawls for assuming that people are fully functional over a normal life
span. The fair equality of opportunity account does not use the impact of disease or
disability on welfare.
Daniels points out that illness and disability (whether these are physical or mental or co-
morbid may not lead to unhappiness, even if they restrict the range of opportunities offered
to or are available to the individual.
Rawl‘s theory of justice as fairness, according to Daniels was not designed to address issues
of healthcare, as he assumed a completely healthy population and argued that any society
which is purporting to be just must, therefore, assure that its members have equal basic
liberties. Furthermore, society must not only provide a robust form of equal opportunity
and limit inequalities to those who benefit and support the least advantaged. Social justice
depends upon social reform.
The principles of social justice work on individual, kinship, and population levels. The
access to fair equality opportunity depends upon public education, early childhood
interventions aimed at eliminating race or class disadvantages, and equality of opportunity.
Whereas Daniels argues for an opportunity-based view, Sen recommends a capability-
based approach.
It is possible to include both to create a model which gives people both the opportunity and
the capability to be healthy. Rawls view of justice is that of a liberal democratic political
regime ensuring that its citizens‘ basic needs for primary goods are met and that citizens
have the means to make effective use of their liberties and opportunities.
The second principle is to ensure that citizens have a fair equality of opportunity. This is
particularly where individuals with mental illness tend to lose out. Principles of social
justice rely on strengthening social institutions.
Social justice in relation to health in general (and mental health in particular) relies on the
questions Daniels raised. The fundamental question is: what do we owe each other in the
protection and promotion of health? He argues that there are three subsidiary questions:
whether health should be seen as special; when are the health inequalities unjust; and how
can we meet competing health needs in a fair and just way when the resources are finite?
Healthcare ensures that individuals remain or become healthy in order to achieve their full
potential and health, thus, ensures distinct (albeit limited) contribution to the protection of
equality of opportunity.
Daniels emphasizes that healthcare is of special moral importance because it helps to
preserve our status as fully functioning citizens. Unlike food or shelter, healthcare needs
may be disproportionate, thereby creating an inherent inequality and discrimination. As
noted elsewhere, social determinants influence mental health and it is appropriate that
social inequalities are tackled.
However, more significantly, in order to ensure greater justice to health outcomes, the
focus should not be only on the traditional health sector, but also on joined up thinking
across education, employment, and the criminal justice system.
Health of the nations (including mental health) depends upon factors other than wealth,
although wealth may be important. Culture, cultural values, government policies, social
capital, social organizations, and social cohesion all play a role in determining health status.
In countries around the world, there has been inadequate access to mental healthcare, for a
number of reasons, including discriminatory constraints consequent upon stigma, keeping
costs down and seeing mental health as purely secondary to physical health.
Using the US as an example, these authors note that recent changes, such as vigorous (and
better) advocacy, better understanding of mental disorders, more effective treatments, and
the means to contain costs, have changed funding patterns.
Mental health funding consistently lags behind that allocated to physical health. This is
related to stigma and discrimination, part of which is to do with not really understanding
what mental illness represents.
The range of mental illness, its varieties across the lifespan, and varying presentations all
mean that funders are not able to decide what it being funded.
Furthermore, conditions such as depression have been seen as a sign of personal or moral
weakness, thus negating the seriousness of the condition. Substance use disorders are seen
as self-induced and as a sign of a lack of backbone, thereby not deserving to be taken
seriously.
Mental health needs should be seen as basic health needs, and not meeting these needs
should be recognized as a failure of fundamental social justice.
Consistent advocacy and better recognition of the symptoms of mental illness have
contributed to a degree of change in attitudes and knowledge, resulting in improved
funding.
Social institutions, whether these are schools, universities, courts, or others, must be
strengthened in the context of social justice in order to ensure delivery of social justice.
The healthcare system should also be seen as an institution which must deliver social
justice, not only in terms of proper accessible healthcare, but also preventive measures.
Ruger offers ethical principles of human flourishing and these include: health capability,
social choice on a dominance partial ordering of health capabilities, and relevant social
decision-making; valuing central health capabilities, measuring inequalities, ethical
commitment, and public moral norms; as well as to social determinants of health and joined
up approach.
What is worth bearing in mind is that at the core of social justice in health are also the
ethical and moral frameworks. However, the key is also about getting the balance right
between governmental responsibility and the individual‘s choice and responsibility for
their own health and capabilities.
Human flourishing is based on Aristotle‘s theory. Ruger notes that ‗human flourishing‘ is
seen as the end of all political activity and what human beings are capable of. It is the basis
of ‗good‘, which is the aim of every action and decision.
It is also about the capability to function well if one so chooses. For individuals with mental
illness, this becomes a major issue in terms of the contrast between individuals‘
expectations of their own functioning and that of the society at large.
Another dimension that must be borne in mind is the one expressed by Ruger that there
must be a distinction between achievement and the freedom to achieve. As Ruger) goes on
to explain, the capability to achieve valuable (but whose values and who defines them?)
functioning also relies upon goods and circumstances needed to produce capabilities.
As capabilities become assured, then it should be left to individuals to be free to make the choices
they like.
In individuals with mental illness, there is a further tension in that different treatments or
combinations of treatment may get them to a certain specific level of functioning, but their
choices will depend upon a number of contextual factors.
In theory these contexts must be the same for everyone in any given culture, but it is not
true in actuality.
Ruger points out that the individual‘s ability to function rather than actual resources should
be the primary goal of public policy.
However, in matters of health and healthcare, resources are the key in getting the individual
to regain health and function as a fully active member of society.
Thus, an evaluation of policy must explore how it (the policy) gives people (with mental
illness) an opportunity to function fully and properly in society. Social justice equally
applies to those who may not have mental illness.
In addition, policy must focus on health. Health policy cannot be seen in isolation, as it has
strong inter-connectedness with education, employment, the legal system, business, and
other policies too.
Sen puts forward the theory of capability, which basically means that everyone should have
the capability to lead a worthwhile life. Capability, according to Ruger can be related to
well-being in two ways: first, it is a set of functions, such as the ability to feed oneself and
walk unaided constitutes a person‘s well-being; and second is the capability to accomplish
these functions is their freedom to achieve personal well-being.
Additionally, well-being depends upon the capability to function.
There is no doubt that capability is also about human heterogeneity, and this is where
individuals with mental illness and their capability (a) to achieve and maintain mental well-
being and (b) to acquire full functioning of their mental and physical well-being come into
play.
Acknowledging heterogeneity provides a rationale for treating individuals differently
under a health capability paradigm which needs to be developed further in that all
individuals with mental illness are given equal status and support to ensure that they work
at full capabilities. Ruger argues that the heterogeneity is also to do with positive freedoms.
The focus is on achieving valuable functioning.
However, in theory there is also a need to ascertain who defines valuable and whether such
a definition includes capital values, individual values or societal/familial values.
The challenges for individuals with mental illness are many. These very much depend upon
what the social expectations of the individual are.
In capitalist and individualistic or ego-centric societies, these expectations will be very
different. In such conditions, individuals are expected to look after themselves and their
immediate families (largely nuclear), so the capability approach will have to focus on that;
unlike socio-centric or collectivist societies, where capabilities must match the needs of the
kinship or the extended family.
As noted above, health policy cannot be developed or seen in isolation, and therefore health
indicators may need to be multi-dimensional too.
Health rights in any given society are an important indicator in health policy. Yet very
often these are ignored in many countries and cultures, being viewed as West-inspired
interferences. Health capability must include equal access to healthcare when needed.
There are various debates about how equal access is defined and described. For the
purposes of this paper, it means being able to access good quality healthcare when needed
without (undue) delay.
Nobody who needs healthcare should be denied it, and policies must grant equal access to
healthcare for all.
Social justice in the health context also means public education about mental illness,
correcting false and harmful health norms.
These have to be developed on a culturally relativist basis. There may be minimum criteria
for some of the services, as described in this issue, but these have to be seen in and set in
the norms context.
This is where perhaps the capabilities approach may enable policy-makers to take
individual needs and capabilities into account.
Ruger argues that the health capability paradigm is an integrative model of disability,
requiring respect for differences (thus also creating some difficulties for evaluation).
Barriers to good quality mental healthcare are many.
Social discrimination is at the top of the list. These lead to poor economic investment in
infrastructure, human resources, and training. Ignorance about mental illness feeds into
this. Socio-cultural barriers may be another potential cause in affecting resource allocation.
This unwittingly sets up a vicious circle where, due to a lack of resources, people seek care
from alternative healthcare or faith-based practitioners; and policy-makers may see this as
the preferred choice, thereby not funding the healthcare system properly.
In countries with multiple cultural and ethnic groups and diversity, this may further create
double jeopardy, thereby setting racial/ethnic prejudices in motion. Another point worth
noting is the separation between physical and mental health in many countries, thereby
creating difficult to overcome barriers.
Social justice and social discrimination go hand in hand. Social discrimination can be
measured in several spheres, from personal to political ones.
There is widespread discrimination in not giving proper habilitation to individuals with
mental illness and not to give them voting rights, which means that they cannot stand for
elections and, therefore, are excluded from participating actively in the political democratic
process.
In this issue, some of these areas are covered.
For each of these papers, well-known policy-makers and parliamentarians have been
invited to write commentaries. These commentaries indicate that policy-makers do
understand the issues and are keen and committed to support this endeavor.
One of the major issues in the social discrimination agenda is the huge degree of variation
in definitions used. Some countries use mental illness, others use mental disorder or mental
derangement, whereas some use medically certified insane or medically proven total
mental incapacity.
Mental incompetence, insanity, lost his mind, demented, seriously weakened mental state,
mentally deficient, insane or imbecile, certified to be insane, and mental ineptitude were
some of the other terms used. Interestingly and equally frustratingly, these terms are often
not described, and the interpretation is left to the person using them.
The procedure for how a person is judged to have a mental health problem is not laid down
in law. This leads to de jure and de facto discrimination.
In many countries, the primary language is not English, so translation of the laws has been
carried out.
This may have left some gaps, in spite of careful translation and interpretation.
One-third of 193 countries studied show that people with mental illness are deprived of
their right to vote.
In only 11% of countries there is no restriction to vote. A similar proportion cannot vote if
they have been detained under the law, and nearly a quarter are not allowed under the
direction of the courts.
Thus, for various reasons more than half of individuals are not able to vote, thus making a
mockery of the democratic process. Furthermore, if they cannot vote they are not eligible
to stand in elections, and thus for all practical purposes are excluded from the democratic
political process.
These variations also depend upon whether the country is high income or low income—
the latter are much more likely to withhold voting rights.
For purposes of employment, one quarter of the countries surveyed do not define the term
‗disability‘, and it is left open to interpretation.
Two-thirds of the countries define disability to include mental illness, but one quarter have
clear discriminatory laws against people with mental illness to enjoy protection in
employment. In half the countries there are no explicit protections against
dismissal/termination of employment/suspension from employment on grounds of mental
health problems. One-third of the countries do not provide access to reasonable
accommodation at the workplace with disabilities including mental disabilities.
Thus, an example of good practice by BT, as shown in the paper Mental Health for Nations,
stands out. Once again, high income countries come out better in this regard in comparison
with low- and middle-income countries.
Personal discrimination (in terms of a right to property) is highly prevalent across the globe.
A right of contract of persons with mental illness is recognized by only 21% of countries.
More than one-third of the countries completely deny the right to contract to persons with
mental illness. Once again, there are clear differences between high income countries and
low- and middle-income countries.
In spite of the fact that many countries have ratified the Convention of Rights of Persons
with Disability, there appears to be a significant gap in delivering on this.
Interestingly, 70% of countries allow people to have succession rights, and these too vary
according to income levels of the country.
Forty-three per cent of countries do not allow people with mental illness the right even to
make a will! Persons with mental illness are discriminated in a significant number of
countries around the globe with respect to the right to property.
To complicate matters further, the right to inherit property and make a will are not an
effective right.
The right to marry and options of divorce on the basis of mental illness are both limited
across many countries. Once more, one of the major problems in this context is the varying,
unclear definitions, which are prone to mis-interpretation.
Discrimination against individuals with mental illness, thus, is widespread and much more
common in low income countries, which in materialistic terms may make sense. However,
major steps need to be taken to move this agenda forward.
These discriminatory laws may well reflect underlying stigma against individuals with
mental illness at a number of levels.
There is no doubt that public attitudes to mental illness have varied from stigmatizing to
accepting over a number of decades, especially varying among cultures.
However, it must be remembered that positive attitudes do not lead to positive or more
accepting behaviours.
Teaching programs certainly change knowledge about mental illness, but increased,
improved, or better knowledge does not get rid of stigma against mental illness or
individuals with mental illness.
The challenge for policy-makers, clinicians, and individuals with mental illness is to attack
discrimination using strategies similar to civil liberties, gender equality, sexual minority
(LGBT) communities, which in many parts of the world have proven to be useful. It is
important, therefore, that clinicians around the globe work with patients, their careers, and
their families, as well as with relevant organizations representing these groups, to challenge
discrimination, change laws, and ensure that these are applied equally.
This equity must be enshrined in law for a number of measures, including funding for
research, training, and healthcare delivery, as is the case for the physical health needs of
the population.
The challenges are, first, to ensure that laws change and, second, that accurate and regular
reporting of these takes place and that these are monitored by impartial observers.
There is simply no explanation for continuing discrimination against individuals with
mental illness, their families, and those who care for them, whether they are professional
or lay carers.
Constitutional protection
About:
o Caste, through its rigid social control and networks facilitates economic
mobility for some and erects barriers for others by mounting disadvantages on
them.
o It also shapes the ownership pattern of land and capital and simultaneously
regulates access to political, social, and economic capital too.
o According to the Census (2011), there are an estimated 20 crore Dalits in India.
o In 2021, 50,900 cases of crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) were registered, an
increase of 1.2% over 2020 (50,291 cases).
o The rate of crime was particularly high in Madhya Pradesh (63.6 per lakh in a
SC population of 113.4 lakh) and Rajasthan (61.6 per lakh in a SC population of
112.2 lakh).
India Discrimination Report by Oxfam India:
o Decline in discrimination in Urban Areas: It has been the case due to education
and supportive government policies.
o Difference in Earning: The average earning of self-employed workers in 2019-20
was Rs 15,878 for people from non-SCs/ST categories, while it is Rs 10,533 for
those from SC or ST backgrounds.
Self-employed non-SC/ST workers earn a third more than their
counterparts from SC or ST backgrounds.
o Rise in Discrimination in Rural areas: The SC and ST communities in rural India
are facing an increase in discrimination in casual employment.
Constitutional Provisions:
o Equality Before Law:
Land Reforms:
o Land reforms were brought for more equitable distribution of land and upliftment
of the marginalized. The Land Reforms of the independent India had four
components:
The Abolition of the Intermediaries
Tenancy Reforms
Fixing Ceilings on Landholdings
Consolidation of Landholdings.
o It recognized Hindu Dalits, Dalits who had converted to Sikhism and Buddhism as
Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of petitions now
seeking inclusion of Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims as Scheduled Castes.
Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY):
o It aims to mobilize youth to take up skill training with the aim of increasing
productivity and aligning the training and certification to the needs of the country.
SANKALP Scheme:
o Skills Acquisition and Knowledge Awareness for Livelihood (SANKALP) is an
outcome-oriented programme of the Ministry of Skill Development &
Entrepreneurship (MSDE) with a special focus on decentralized planning and
quality improvement.
Stand Up India Scheme:
o It was launched in April 2016 to promote entrepreneurship at the grass-root level
focusing on economic empowerment and job creation.
o To leverage the institutional credit structure to reach out to the underserved sector
of people such as SCs, STs and Women Entrepreneurs.
Way Forward
Inclusive practices:
We can reduce the chances of discrimination happening by working in ways that promote equality,
diversity and inclusion. For example:
Treat the individuals you support as unique rather than treating all individuals in the same way
Ensure you work in a non-judgmental way. Do not allow judgmental beliefs to effect the care and
support you provide
Follow the agreed ways of working in your workplace to create an environment that is free from
discrimination
Work in an inclusive way that sees the positive input that all individuals can make to society and
to their own care
Be confident to challenge or confront discriminatory practice if you see this is in your workplace.
Workplace Inclusivity
Creating equitable spaces involves implementing policies and practices that prevent
discrimination and create an inclusive work environment.
It requires a commitment from leadership to prioritize diversity and inclusion in all aspects
of the organization.
Diverse hiring practices play a crucial role in crafting equitable spaces. By actively seeking
out candidates from different backgrounds and experiences, organizations can ensure that
their workforce reflects the diversity of the communities they serve.
This not only brings fresh perspectives and ideas to the table but also helps to break down
barriers and challenge stereotypes.
Employee resource groups are another important aspect of crafting equitable space. These
groups provide a platform for employees to connect, share experiences, and support one
another.
They can focus on various aspects of diversity, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or
disability, and work towards creating a more inclusive workplace for all.
In addition to diverse hiring practices and employee resource groups, training programs are
essential in promoting workplace inclusivity.
These programs should focus on cultural sensitivity and unconscious bias awareness.
By educating employees about different cultures, traditions, and perspectives,
organizations can foster a more inclusive and understanding work environment.
Education's Role
Inclusive Curriculums
Inclusive curriculums ensure that diverse perspectives are represented and celebrated. It
involves the incorporation of materials that reflect the experiences of various marginalized
groups and the promotion of critical thinking skills that challenge biases and stereotypes.
Imagine a history class where students learn about the contributions of women, people of
color, and LGBTQ+ individuals who have been historically overlooked.
By including their stories, educational institutions can provide a more accurate and
comprehensive understanding of our shared history.
Inclusive curriculums foster empathy and understanding among students. When students
are exposed to different cultures, religions, and backgrounds, they develop a broader
perspective of the world. This exposure helps break down barriers and build bridges
between communities.
Legal Advocacy
Legal advocacy is a powerful tool in protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring equal
treatment under the law.
Through the implementation of anti-discrimination laws and landmark cases that challenge
discriminatory practices, legal systems can serve as a catalyst for societal change.
Legal advocacy goes beyond simply advocating for the rights of individuals; it also
involves promoting awareness and education about the importance of equality and non-
discrimination.
By engaging with communities, organizations, and policymakers, legal advocates can
foster a culture of inclusivity and respect.
Protecting Rights
By working closely with lawmakers, they can advocate for amendments and improvements
to existing legislation, making it more comprehensive and effective in addressing emerging
forms of discrimination.
Moreover, legal advocacy extends beyond the courtroom.
It involves providing support and guidance to individuals who have experienced
discrimination, helping them navigate the legal system and access the resources they need
to seek justice.
Through this holistic approach, legal advocates empower individuals to assert their rights
and challenge discriminatory practices.
Throughout history, landmark cases have shaped the legal landscape and advanced the fight
against discrimination.
From the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States to the Equality Act in the United
Kingdom, these laws have set important precedents and paved the way for progress.
For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that
outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
This landmark law not only addressed racial segregation and unequal treatment but also
laid the foundation for subsequent anti-discrimination laws in various areas, such as
employment, housing, and education.
Similarly, the Equality Act in the United Kingdom is a comprehensive law that prohibits
discrimination based on protected characteristics and promotes equality in various aspects
of life, including employment, education, and the provision of goods and services.
This legislation is a testament to the commitment of the UK legal system to combat
discrimination and ensure equal opportunities for all.
By studying and learning from these cases, we can gain insights into effective legal
strategies for combating discrimination.
Landmark cases serve as reminders of the power of legal advocacy and the potential for
positive change.
They inspire future generations of legal advocates to continue the fight for justice and
equality.
Media Influence
The media wields immense power in shaping public perceptions and attitudes.
By advocating for responsible representation and challenging stereotypes, the media can
contribute to the dismantling of discriminatory narratives.
The media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about marginalized groups.
By depicting diverse characters and telling stories that challenge stereotypes, media outlets
can foster empathy and understanding.
Responsible representation requires inclusive casting, accurate storytelling, and the
inclusion of diverse voices in the decision-making process.
Economic Disparities
Addressing systemic imbalances and implementing policies that promote prosperity for all is
crucial in advancing the fight against discrimination.
Policies that promote prosperity for all are essential in combating economic discrimination.
This includes initiatives such as affordable housing, job training programs, and accessible
healthcare.
By creating an environment where everyone has equal opportunities to thrive, society can
take a significant step towards eradicating discrimination.
Technology’s Impact
Technology has the potential to both perpetuate and combat discrimination. By understanding the
algorithms of equality and harnessing the power of digital platforms, we can leverage technology
as a catalyst for change.
Algorithms of Equality
Algorithms used in technology have the potential to perpetuate bias or promote equality.
By ensuring that algorithms are designed with inclusivity in mind and regularly audited for
biases, we can minimize the risk of discriminatory outcomes.
Additionally, diverse representation in the development of technology can contribute to
more equitable systems.
Digital platforms provide spaces for marginalized voices to be heard and create
communities of support and activism.
Social media campaigns, online petitions, and digital organizing have become powerful
tools in advocating for change.
By harnessing the power of digital platforms, individuals and organizations can amplify
their message and mobilize broad support.
Global Perspectives
Examining struggles against discrimination around the world sheds light on the challenges
faced by different communities.
It also highlights the importance of solidarity and learning from each other's successes and
failures. By understanding the global landscape of discrimination, we can develop more
effective strategies and policies.
Activism and solidarity play crucial roles in driving positive change and challenging
discriminatory systems.
Grassroots movements and fostering solidarity beyond borders can create momentum for
transforming societies.
Grassroots Movements
Solidarity beyond borders allows for global collaboration in the fight against
discrimination. Allies around the world can provide support to marginalized communities
facing discrimination.
By sharing knowledge, resources, and experiences, individuals and organizations can
collectively work towards a more inclusive world.
Inclusivity and equality are fundamental rights that every individual deserves.
Discrimination continues to be a reality for many people around the world, but by
navigating the global path to inclusivity and equality, we can make significant strides
towards a more just and equitable society.
It requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses various aspects of discrimination,
including understanding its origins, taking action to overcome biases, promoting
inclusivity in workplaces and education, advocating for legal protections, challenging
media narratives, addressing economic disparities, leveraging technology, learning from
global perspectives, and fostering activism and solidarity.
By working together, we can create a world where discrimination has no place and
inclusivity and equality thrive.
Transparency and Fairness in scientific pursuits – Scientific inventions for the betterment
of society – Unfair application of scientific inventions – Role and Responsibility of
Scientist in the modern society.
There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency,
openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align
scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access
to scientific knowledge.
The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing
an overview of open science for prevention researchers.
In this, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research
practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open
science reform efforts.
In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could
incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and
methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement.
To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for
the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness,
and reproducibility.
Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of
prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative
and inclusive participation in research activities.
By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science
can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual
and collective well-being.
Transparency, openness, and reproducibility are inherent in fundamental scientific ideals, such as
communality, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism for example, open science
practices better enable researchers to verify the work of others.
Verifiability relates to the ideal of science as ―self-correcting,‖ which means the scientific
community governs itself in order to calibrate evidentiary claims and limit unavoidable errors,
thereby safeguarding credibility and instilling trust in the scientific literature Because verifiability
requires researchers to provide empirical support for scientific claims, practices like data sharing
enable the verifiability of empirical evidence.
Toward that end, open science bolsters research integrity by facilitating verifiability. As
researchers increasingly espouse these ideals, making open science the norm would better align
actual scientific practice with the ideals to which scientists subscribe.
Open science also can accelerate the progress of science as a cumulative enterprise. Transparency
and reproducibility facilitate reuse and building on the work of others, leading to greater returns
on research investments.
For example, sharing data, code, and materials allows a greater proportion of products from
previous research to influence new studies.
These practices can speed the process of new discoveries and expedite error detection, thereby
redirecting unproductive lines of research more quickly.
A new research team can better check the internal consistency of another team‘s results, reanalyze
data using the original analytical strategy, and examine robustness to alternative analytical choices,
prior to conducting a new study.
In addition, openness enables collaborations not possible through siloed research, such as
crowdsourced initiatives that build large datasets to create opportunities for a greater number of
rich data analyses.
Data sharing also yields greater power to investigate new or more complex questions (e.g.,
intervention effects on rare outcomes, subgroup effects, or moderated mediation) that require
larger sample sizes than are typically found in one study.
Adopting protocols, software, and analytic strategies from previous studies can increase
standardization, facilitating more efficient discoveries and research syntheses that summarize the
cumulative evidence within a line of scientific inquiry.
The open science movement also focuses on making research products and outputs more
usable and freely available to everyone, broadening access to scientific knowledge and
resources.
For example, disparities in financial, human, and physical resources across research
institutions can be mitigated by the free availability and reuse of protocols, data, code,
software, and materials from previous research.
In addition, open access articles can be read online or downloaded freely by stakeholders
not affiliated with research institutions that have journal subscriptions, such as non-
governmental organizations, policymakers, and engaged citizens.
Through this focus on free availability of research findings and products, open science can
accelerate the flow of scientific evidence to the public.
Researchers make numerous decisions across all stages of research, or the research
lifecycle, including question formulation, study design, data collection and analysis, and
reporting and dissemination.
Without transparency, researchers have undisclosed flexibility in making these decisions
(sometimes called ―researcher degrees of freedom‖), which enable specific concerns
motivating the open science movement.
For example, a ―closed‖ research lifecycle hinders the ability to reproduce previous
research facilitates selective non-reporting of studies and results (i.e., publication bias and
outcome reporting bias) and other detrimental research practices, prevents detection of
unintentional errors and intentional misconduct.
Goodman offer a three-term taxonomy that may be helpful to facilitate shared
understanding of and clear communication about reproducibility within prevention science.
First, ―methods reproducibility‖ refers to the ability to implement the same methodological
and computational procedures with the same data to obtain the same results as a previous
study.
It facilitates trust that data and analyses are as represented, requiring provision of enough
detail about original study methods and data for another to repeat the same procedures.
―Results reproducibility‖ refers to the ability to implement the same methodological
procedures with a new, independent dataset to produce results corroborating a previous
study.
Using this terminology, a replication study generally refers to a study designed to examine
or test the results reproducibility of a previous study, with the potential to provide new
evidence for a scientific claim.
Finally, ―inferential reproducibility‖ refers to the ability to draw conclusions that are
qualitatively similar to a previous study, either from an independent replication or
reanalysis of the original study data.
All three types of reproducibility are relevant to the field of prevention science and germane
to the open science movement, each with important considerations across stages of the
research lifecycle.
While there are various determinants of reporting findings that are false and irreproducible,
common ―detrimental research practices‖ may be important contributors.
Some researchers intentionally engage in these practices with full knowledge of their
negative consequences; however, most researchers likely do so unknowingly or under the
belief that these practices are acceptable and compatible with research integrity.
Regardless of intention or understanding, these practices have detrimental effects on
research integrity by inflating the false positive error rate in the research literature.
Fig. 1
Note: Figure adapted from the roadmap co-developed by SG for the Berkeley Initiative for
Transparency in the Social Sciences Research Transparency and Reproducibility Training (RT2)
workshops.
Fig. 2
Over the past two centuries, many people have used their knowledge, skills, and
experience in order to create a host of inventions that have made the world a much better
place for us to live.
Here are eight paramount discoveries and innovations that have improved our standard of
living and have given us the opportunity to pursue our personal and business endeavors in
a more comfortable and prosperous fashion.
KEY POINTS:
Paper money, invented by China, kickstarted economies by removing the need to barter
with goods.
Vaccinations helped reduce illness and deaths, and local anesthesia made surgeries easier
for patients.
The first automobile is believed to have been invented by Karl and Bertha Benz.
The first digital computer was created in 1937.
Financial Services
China is not only credited with having invented paper, but it is also generally recognized as the
first country in the world to use paper money. The paper money system helped improve
economies worldwide by moving them away from bartering.
Healthcare
Edward Jenner's work is widely regarded as the foundation of immunology. Jenner is well
renowned worldwide for his innovative contribution to immunization and the ultimate eradication
of smallpox.
William Morton was one of the first individuals to demonstrate how ether could be used to remove
the pain of operations. His use of anesthesia was displayed at a public demonstration to the
surgeons of the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston on Oct. 16, 1846, where John Collins
Warren excised a tumor from a patient's neck.
William Morton wasn't necessarily the first to discover or invent anesthetics, but his name is most
commonly referenced when speaking of the first practitioners to use the drug. In fact, for several
years, various controversies and litigation surrounded the credit for the development of
anesthesia.
Alexander Fleming discovered the active substance he termed "penicillin" while working on the
influenza virus. Fleming made this discovery by observing that mold had developed accidentally
on a staphylococcus culture plate and that the mold had created a bacteria-free circle around itself.
He was inspired to experiment further and found that a mold culture prevented the growth of
staphylococci, which verified his discovery. To this day, penicillin is used to treat a host of
bacterial infections.
Louis Pasteur developed the process now known as "pasteurization," which is a process of heating
food to a specific temperature for a definite length of time and then cooling it immediately to
reduce the number of viable pathogens that may cause disease. Dairy products, canned foods,
juices, syrups, water, and wines are the primary products that are pasteurized today.
Transportation
Karl Benz patented all of the processes that made the internal combustion engine feasible for use
in cars. Karl Benz and his wife, Bertha Ringer Benz, were the founders of the Mercedes-Benz
automobile manufacturing company.
Energy
Nikola Tesla filed for seven U.S. patents in the field of polyphase alternating current motors and
power transmission. Tesla's patents comprised a complete system of generators, transformers,
transmission lines, motors, and lighting. Tesla is also credited with the invention of the radio.
However, a patent dispute with the Marconi Company resulted, ultimately leading to the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling for Tesla after his death.
Technology
Patent Rights
While this list consists of well-known and distinguished inventors, it is important to note
that their works were built upon the ideas and labor of many people in order to create the
final product or service that we enjoy and use today.
Many of the contributors to a key invention or innovation often go unremembered and
uncompensated.
Hopefully, governments worldwide will strive to resolve this problem by implementing a
more equitable patent system.
The most recent significant step toward accomplishing this goal in patent law was the
passage of the America Invents Act on Sept. 16, 2011.
The passage of this Act moved the U.S. patent system from a "first to invent" to a "first to
file" system, which means that all parties know upfront that if they have a good idea for
an invention, they need to be the first to file a patent application with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office to protect their intellectual property rights.
Passage of this Act also eliminated delays previously experienced through interference
proceedings and allowed a patented product to come to market in an expedited manner.
If you can think of something that makes life easier, you can probably create it. Computers, design
applications, three-dimensional printers, and other technological innovations make the creation
process much easier now than in the past.
An invention is something created by someone. A patent grants the exclusive rights to the
patent filer.
Patents generally last for a specific period, based on the type of patent it is—in the U.S.,
the term for a utility patent is 20 years.
There are hundreds of inventions that have changed the way we live. One of the most
significant was agriculture, which moved us from hunter/gatherers to farmers and reduced
human migratory patterns.
The printing press and steam engine are two other notable inventions attributed with
drastically changing life.
For current entrepreneurs, the 2011 change in U.S. patent law, with the use of low-cost,
powerful personal computers and the affordability of the ever-expanding internet, should
provide a much greater business environment for establishing a successful small business.
We have already seen a number of relatively new and successful companies that have
benefited from online intangible business models.
Examples include Google, Amazon, eBay, YouTube, LinkedIn, Craigslist, Wikipedia, and
PayPal, to name a few. With the U.S.'s progressive patent law, new online businesses have
an additional advantage for establishing a successful small business operation.
While scientific inventions have brought about numerous benefits and advancements to society,
they also come with certain disadvantages. Some of the disadvantages of scientific inventions
include:
Scientific inventions are what drives life and progress. However, there are few downsides to it.
Loss of jobs. The company which comes with the useful scientific invention will
dominate its competition meaning other companies will lose customers and people will
be threatened to lose their jobs. Machinery and automation will cause the same effect.
Moral dilemmas. For example, the development of sentient robots which are in every
aspect better than humans will make the human race redundant.
Cost of lives. Experimentation has its costs. Either it‘s with animals or trials with people
- someone will die in the name of science.
Potential for ultimate destruction. Atom, nuclear physics, and nuclear energy are great
discoveries. Yet, atomic bombs have the strength to destroy bigly. Not only physics can
destroy. Biological inventions can be weaponized to release specially designed viruses
to eradicate life. Same with chemical warfare. Science in bad guy hands can destroy
civilizations.
It‘s not illogical to think that every invention is made for the good of the world. Inventions
help people, better society, and advance technology, right? Many inventions do probably
start out with good intentions, even if it‘s in the vein of just seeing what happens.
However, as you‘ll see in the list of inventions below, the reality can be very different and
not everything in this man-made world has had a positive impact on the world.
In fact, the damage has been catastrophic in some cases. But of course, it‘s only possible
to call out these inventions through the magic of hindsight.
Who knows what other modern creations will have a darker side to them in decades to
come?
Cigarettes
It seems obvious now that smoking is bad for you, yet for a while smoking was seen as a
harmless habit, heavily marketed to millions of people.
The first commercially available cigarette was launched in 1865 by Washington Duke
made on his 300-acre farm in Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. His hand-rolled cigarettes
were sold to soldiers at the end of the Civil War.
It wasn‘t until the late 1940s and 50s that studies began to take place linking smoking to
lung cancer.
For instance, in Britain in 1949, Richard Doll, a researcher working for the Medical
Research Council, and Bradford Hill, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene,
began looking at lung cancer patients in London hospitals.
The patients were asked about family history, diet, and previous diseases. In 649 cases of
lung cancer, two were non-smokers. Doll immediately gave up his own five cigarettes a
day habit.
By 1956, the link was incontrovertible and soon restrictions were placed on advertising,
followed by higher taxation, restrictions on sales to children, and on smoking in public
places, with information on tar and nicotine content being given to the public cigarette
sales fell for the first time in a decade.
Many smokers at the time blamed the tobacco companies, who aggressively promoted
their products to consumers without any health warnings.
Today, there are various restrictions on nicotine advertising. Still, in 2018, the World
Health Organization reported that tobacco kills more than seven million people each year.
More than six million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use, while around
890,000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke.
Plastics
When plastics were first invented around 110 years ago, they were seen as a miracle
invention for their strength, flexibility, durability and heat resistant structure.
Today, they‘re still heavily in use, with most food packaging arriving to consumers in
plastic containers, and syringes and hygienic packaging used in hospitals to prevent
diseases.
Plastics are used so prevalently in part because they‘re pretty much indestructible, but
ultimately that‘s become plastics‘ best and worst trait.
In 1964, the world produced 15 million tons of it. That grew to 311 million tons in 2014,
which is expected to double in the next two decades.
Around 33% of all plastic is used once and thrown away, and as plastic can‘t biodegrade,
they just break down into smaller and smaller pieces that leak toxic chemicals and ruin
ecosystems instead.
While there is still a lot of work to be done to fully wage the war on plastic, changes are
being made, for instance in 2018 when many companies like McDonald‘s banned the use
of plastic straws and introduced paper alternatives around the UK.
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
Nuclear Fission
Nuclear fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the
nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei).
The fission process often produces free neutrons and gamma photons, and releases a very
large amount of energy even by the energetic standards of radioactive decay.
Nuclear fission of heavy elements was discovered on December 17, 1938 by Otto Hahn
and his assistant Fritz Strassmann, and explained theoretically in January 1939 by Lise
Meitner and her nephew Otto Robert Frisch.
In the United States, an all-out effort for making atomic weapons began in late 1942. This
work was taken over by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1943, and known as the
Manhattan Engineer District.
The top-secret Manhattan Project, as it was known, was responsible for creating the first
nuclear weapons.
In the years after World War II, many countries were involved in the further development
of nuclear fission for the purposes of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
The UK opened the first commercial nuclear power plant in 1956. By 2013, there were
437 reactors in 31 countries.
So far, two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both by the United
States near the end of World War II. On August 6, 1945, a uranium gun-type device (code
name "Little Boy") was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
Three days later, on August 9, a plutonium implosion-type device (code name "Fat Man")
was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. These two bombings resulted in the
deaths of approximately 120,000 people.
Today these areas are no-go zones with radioactive activity still prevalent. The lasting
effects of these attacks highlight the destruction nuclear weapons can wreak, but countries
all over the world worryingly still sit on secret stashes of them.
Centrifuge machine heat shield used in DOE project to enrich uranium with fissional U-
235 for use in nuclear reactors (From the collection of LIFE Photo Collection)
Badge of the Organisation for Information on Nuclear Power (From the collection of
British Museum)
Gunpowder
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has gotten a bad rep over the years and has been
nicknamed "the Devil's candy," a "sinister invention," and "the crack of sweeteners"
among many other sweet-toothed evil things. Different forms of HFCS have been in
varying levels of production since the 1950s, but it wasn‘t until 1976 that the FDA
approved HFCS as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) that it began being used heavily
in American cuisine.
Used to sweeten food, enhance flavor, and add texture and volume, HFCS is a cheap and
easily mass-produced ingredient that‘s become a prime culprit of the US obesity epidemic.
Why? Well from 1970 to 2000, there was a 25% increase in "added sugars" in the US.
After being classified as GRAS, HFCS began to replace sucrose as the main sweetener of
soft drinks in the United States. At the same time, rates of obesity rose.
While consumption of HFCS in the US has declined since it peaked at 37.5lb (17.0kg) per
person in 1999, it‘s still rife in many diets.
In 2012, the average American consumed approximately 27.1lb (12.3kg) of HFCS, versus
39.0lb (17.7kg) of refined cane and beet sugar. To keep up with the health concerns of
consumers, food companies have begun to eliminate them from their products.
McDonalds for instance in 2016 pledged it would replace HFCS with regular white sugar
in its burger buns and Hershey‘s, Heinz, and PepsiCo have made similar moves.
Eat Cane Syrup & Molasses poster (From the collection of Library of Virginia)
Cotton Gin
The cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitney in 1793 and patented in 1794. It‘s a machine
that quickly and easily separates cotton fibers from their seeds, enabling much greater
productivity than manual cotton separation.
The fibers can then be processed into various cotton goods such as linens, while any
undamaged cotton is used largely for textiles like clothing.
It revolutionized the cotton industry in the United States, but unintentionally caused the
growth of slavery in the American South as the demand for cotton workers rapidly
increased. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did
not reduce the ―need‖ for slaves to grow and pick the cotton.
Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand
for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states, in 1860 there were 15.
From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808,
Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners
was a slave.
As a result of this, the cotton gin has been identified as an inadvertent contributing factor
to the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861–1865).
The war was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate States of
America, a collection of 11 southern states that left the Union in 1860 and 1861 and
formed their own country in order to protect the institution of slavery. After the war was
over, the Constitution was amended to free the slaves, to assure ―equal protection under
the law‖ for American citizens, and to grant black men the right to vote.
More specifically, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment
guaranteed that citizens would receive ―equal protection under the law,‖ and the 15th
Amendment granted black men the right to vote.
While the constitution was eventually amended, it doesn‘t eliminate that heinous period
of history or reduce the impact that can still be felt among American citizens, centuries
later.
Cars
Cars allowed people to travel faster and further than ever and provided a sense of
adventure and independence for many.
Today though, the automobile is thought to be one of the worst inventions of the 20th
century. But why? When Karl Benz developed a petrol-powered automobile it was
dismissed by critics, with many feeling as though nothing would overtake horse-drawn
carts, trains, and bicycles. With hindsight, we know that couldn‘t be further from the truth.
Nevertheless, with their ubiquitous use around the world, cars have made their mark on
the world in various negative ways.
The modern negative consequences of heavy car use include the use of non-renewable
fuels, air and noise pollution, urban sprawl, and automobile accidents. To get a sense of
this particular effect, in 2015 for instance, there were around 6.3 million car accidents in
the US alone.
To combat these issues, big car companies are working to create more environmentally
friendly cars and vehicles laced with enough tech that they can perform a parallel park
better than the driver. But however safe the cars are in comparison to when they were first
produced (seatbelts have reduced the risk of death by 45%), it‘s the drivers that carry a
responsibility as well.
Internet
The internet is arguably one of the most successful inventions in recent decades. It‘s
provided a fast way for people to connect with each other, receive news, learn things, and
be entertained among other things.
It‘s also created new career paths in a range of different and exciting industries. But it‘s
also hindered the way we previously did those same things.
As much as it‘s brought people together, the internet has also: segregated us from daily
interactions; Internet addiction disorder (IAD) is a diagnosable thing;, bullying in schools
can now reach students at home because of social media;
it‘s easier to share illegal materials like child pornography; and identity theft and
cybercrime is huge with 30% of US consumers notified of a data breach in 2017, with the
amount stolen peaking at $16.8 billion.
Just this quick overview highlights the numerous areas of life the internet has seeped into
in a fairly short time. However despite the problems, dangers, and concerns, the role the
internet plays in the day to day doesn‘t feel like it‘s slowing down anytime soon.
Computer Software: Internet Tutorial (From the collection of The Strong National
Museum of Play)
Mobile phones
Mobile phones or cell phones are as much a part of people‘s lives as the internet, and the
two have become heavily intertwined.
The world's first mobile phone call was made on April 3, 1973, when Martin Cooper, a
senior engineer at Motorola, called a rival telecommunications company and informed
them he was speaking via a mobile phone.
The phone Cooper used, if you could call it that, weighed a staggering 1.1kg and measured
in at 228.6x127x44.4mm. With this prototype device, you got 30 minutes of talk-time and
it took around 10 hours to charge.
We are now in the age of the smartphone.
People didn't start using the term "smartphone" until 1995, but the first true smartphone
actually made its debut three years earlier in 1992.
It was called the Simon Personal Communicator, and it was created by IBM more than 15
years before Apple released the iPhone.
The heavy use of smartphones has started to negatively impact people‘s mental health and
wellbeing, for instance it‘s thought it can contribute towards sleep issues and replace in-
person communication.
There‘s also the expectation to be online and connected all the time, self-worth is equated
to likes on social media, and reading on smartphones can be worse for learning and
comprehension.
In today‘s world, phone addiction is a very real thing, and it‘s because phones are not just
a means to call someone but also a device to store images, watch things, pay for goods,
manage your finances, exercise with and so much more. So what‘s next for these handheld
computers?
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
DDT
DDT was supposed to be the magic solution that would rid the world of insect-borne
diseases like malaria. Discovered in 1873, DDT (short for dichloro-diphenyl-
trichloroethane) wasn't used widely until 1939, when Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Muller
noted its effectiveness as a pesticide during World War II, a discovery that earned him a
Nobel Prize in 1948.
After the war, its use exploded and from 1942 to 1972, around 1.35 billion pounds of DDT
were used in the US.
The environmental effects of using millions of pounds of potent pesticides each year was,
for a while, completely ignored. In 1962, Rachel Carson‘s book Silent Spring was the first
to call attention to the fact that DDT might not be as magical as people thought it was.
The book cataloged the environmental impact that coincided with the widespread use of
DDT in agriculture in the United States, and questioned the logic of using potentially
dangerous chemicals in the environment with little prior investigation of their effects.
Carson claimed that DDT and other pesticides had been shown to cause cancer and fertility
issues, and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.
Its publication was a seminal event for the environmental movement and resulted in a
large public outcry that eventually led, in 1972, to a ban on DDT's agricultural use in the
United States.
A worldwide ban on agricultural use was formalized under the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, but its limited and still-controversial use in disease vector
control continues because of its effectiveness in reducing malarial infections, balanced by
environmental and other health concerns.
Man spraying Elm Trees in Wisconsin with DDT to prevent Dutch Elm Disease by Lee
Balterman (From the collection of LIFE Photo Collection)
DDT affected birds by George Silk (From the collection of LIFE Photo Collection).
Scientists are increasingly seen as outsiders; they are no longer seen as an integral part of
society. There is no doubt that the public is largely not interested in science (or at least
ignorant to it‘s existence), and that perhaps the public‘s view of science in general is
somewhat different to what life is like at academic and scientific institutions.
So how has science become so alienated from society?
Although I don‘t know the full answer to this, I believe that science‘s portrayal (or lack
thereof) in the media has played a significant role.
One rarely hears of scientific stories in the general press, and this lack of publicity leads to
public scientific ignorance, and ultimately, disinterest.
Therefore, less people are taking up science at university, and we are left in the situation
where a small minority of people are involved and interested in the longest running human
endeavour. Thus, the general public are left largely unaware of what is happening in
science today.
This lack of interest on the public‘s part leaves the scientist with more responsibility than
ever; if science is to continue to evolve, then which direction should it take, and what are
our scientific priorities?
I believe the only way to progress is for greater unity in the global scientific community.
Scientists from across the world must work closer than ever before to establish their
common goals, and to work towards these goals together, rather than nations wasting
resources by ‗racing for the prize‘. For this direction to be successful, scientists must
respect the fact that they have certain responsibilities to each other, which, if ignored, will
thwart this scientific process.
It must be accepted that this is part of the scientific process, and scientists should, from a
philosophical point of view, always expect to be surprised and not take current theories for
granted.
Another responsibility of great importance is the ability of the scientist to share their
knowledge and findings with others. Science is historically riddled with examples of
supposedly 'great minds', for example Newton and Darwin, being territorial and selfish
over their work.
When one makes a discovery, one must tell the scientific world in aid to further progress
and to inspire others.
The scientists must put the progress of mankind ahead of egotistical ambitions and
rivalries.
So, what responsibilities does the scientist owe the public? As discussed, the scientist holds
a large amount of power due to their knowledge, education, and research.
The way the scientist uses this power is the main responsibility they have to the public. So,
the scientist must consider the implications of their work on the world.
Primarily, the scientist must believe that their work is for the better good, that they are
making the world a better place. The scientist must not use their knowledge to knowingly
contribute to work that would be detrimental to the world.
They must be careful and considerate of what their work tells them, and if they identify an
area of their work which could be used for detrimental purposes, they must do all they can
to prevent this from happening.
This is simple enough on paper, however, when a scientist is offered a lucrative contract,
or perhaps the promise of subsequent funding for a later research project, they may be
tempted to ignore their conscience, and partake in work which in other conditions, they
would be unwilling to contribute towards.
The scientist must be strong in these scenarios, and accept that there are people out there
who wish to appeal to their greedy side in order for them to gain.
The scientists must stay strong, and not ‗sell out‘ their professional ethics and integrity
because a carrot is being dangled in front of their faces.
This is another reason for greater unification of scientists. If the scientific community were
in agreement of the direction of science, it would be harder for individual scientists to get
bullied by people with dishonest intentions.
Finally, the scientist must work harder to communicate their findings, both to people within
the scientific field, and outside of it.
They must listen to others, and develop the skills necessary to explain to 'laypeople' how
they are conducting themselves, and what their discoveries mean to society.
After all, society puts trust into scientists, with the hope that science will make their lives
better, and ultimately, they often pick up the bill for research, so it is only right that
scientists inform them in the appropriate way of their findings.
So, what is the way forward? Well, to reiterate, I believe it of utmost importance for a
greater integration of scientists and scientific fields. Luckily, I believe the emerging
technologies will aid us in this quest. Thanks to the rise of global communications and the
Internet, there will be greater pooling of information, and research will become available
as soon as it is completed.
Hopefully this will also lead to greater transparency of work; if this technology helps us to
observe each other work, we can see exactly how experiments are carried out, and have far
easier access to advice and evaluation from our peers. Hopefully this greater transparency
and freedom of data will also make science more exciting and accessible to the public.
The epoch we are living in is typical for the frequent occurrence of crises, which affect
lives of masses of people.
The consequences of these crises impose the responsibility on science as a force,
participating in these situations and therefore, it places a great responsibility on those, who
are actually responsible for science, the scientists.
One can often hear the harsh criticism of the science and this is natural. Many disasters
happen as a result of the modern technologies.
It is enough to mention the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986 to visualize, how disastrous the
consequences of mistakes in technology can be. There was a nuclear reactor explosion,
which ejected a huge amount of radioactive matter into the environment, polluting the soil
and water for many years.
Except for the technogenic cataclysms, there is also an opinion that all the geological and
meteorological catastrophes happen because of humans‘ fatal influence on the
environment. This can actually be confirmed by a fact, that the frequency of these
phenomena, taking place nowadays, is much higher than that in the past.
Obviously, science is nothing without those who possess the knowledge of that and push
technological progress forwards, the scientists. For that reason, they carry great
responsibility towards humanity.
The distinctive feature of modern science is its close link to manufacture, when the newly
introduced ideas receive their practical application in a short period of time.
In this case the scientists‘ responsibility increases, because they are in power of the events
of the near future, and as an ancient philosopher truthfully said, ―the great power demands
the great responsibility‖.
The area where the matter of scientists‘ responsibility remains extremely sharp is the field
of nuclear research and its applications.
From one point of view, nuclear fission is a powerful source of energy, which can move
vehicles and heat houses, but on the other hand, a small defect in the fission system may
cause a huge disaster, which could destroy lives of thousands of people.
The other disadvantage of nuclear power is the pollution of the environment due to the
nuclear waste. Since the geological energy resources are running out, scientists develop
new ways of the nuclear energy usage, making it safer for people and the environment.
Now researchers are close to the realization of a project of small nuclear plants, which
would be heating up the ordinary urban houses and would be located in the city area. An
obvious question arises: will it be safe? A tiny spark in the electrical wiring of such a plant
will have irreparable consequences.
Other disputable areas of research include genetics, bioinformatics and neurobiology.
There is a constant disagreement between people of different professions concerning the
right for scientists to perform such investigations.
The hottest disputes occur between atheistic scientists and religious people, where the first
state that they are trying to help people overcome some diseases, which cannot be healed
in any other way, but many of those who believe in God consider the genetics experiments
as an interfering with Divine Providence.
It is a question of ethics, whether scientists should work in this area. There is a blurred
boundary between the accepted and unconventional areas of research.
Something, which falls within the unaccepted region, is cloning, and especially the human
cloning, which definitely goes against the ethics. One can say that animal cloning should
be totally accepted, that there are no contradictions in religious, ethic and social aspects;
but this may eventually lead to human cloning.
Since the required technologies for cloning have been achieved and some experiments
were successful, experiments on humans could potentially be started. It is impossible to
predict the results of such experiments.
Although we are able to forecast the genetic properties of a clone, it is absolutely
unknown, what kind of character the clone would possess. What would that child of
science bring to the world? The main difference between an animal and a human is the
existence of a unique mentality and an immortal soul. Will clones possess such qualities
or will they be human-like animals with the ability to talk, suitable for hunting and
consuming by their creators? These are the questions for scientists to be answered before
attempting such experiments.
Another area of scientific exploration, which may cause a possible threat to the society, is
robotics and, especially, biorobotics.
The researchers of the Reading University succeeded in a constructing a robot, which was
independently controlled by a biological brain inside the machine. The main components
of such a creature are the rat‘s neurons in a biological fluid connected to tiny electrodes,
similar to those in microchips of a computer.
The neurons appear to ―behave‖ as a collection of interconnected cells, reacting to the
external stimuli. After a certain period, the robot, equipped with a camera, started to learn
and memorize the operational environment (which was a box in that case).
Finally, it was stopping its motion if the way was blocked by an obstacle and changing its
route.
This experiment shows that bio robotics, together with neuroscience have progressed very
far. Obviously, the scientists involved will modernize their creatures, teaching them to
perform more and more complex tasks; but what would happen if something goes wrong?
The first thing, which comes into one‘s mind, is the colorful production of Hollywood‘s
―Terminator‖. We are much closer to the time described in this film, than we think.
It is a great risk for scientists to work in these areas, because they are playing with fire.
The modern super-powerful computers and nanotechnologies are great tools for the
researchers, but it is vitally important to direct the works into the right channel and to keep
the situation under constant firm control.
It is in the hands of researchers to change all the humanity and provide people a great
support for industry, manufacturing and life.
It is their responsibility to prevent the situation going out of control and putting the society
in danger.
Recall what the world looked like at the beginning of the twentieth century. There was no
electricity in many regions of different countries; the aero plane was fantastic without
mentioning the space travelling.
Now we get to the farthest part of the Earth in several hours, we can talk to our friends,
holding a small device, which is literally connected to nothing.
On the other hand, millions of people have died because of scientific progress, which
brought us the nuclear weapon. These are the different aspects of the consequences of
science, which can save lives, but take them away even more rapidly.
The responsibility of all of these events lays with those, who pushed the progress forwards
– the scientists. We worship them because they granted us with many blessings and blame
them for poisoning our lives.
Those who are in power over science are in power of billions of lives, which expect the
magicians of nature to make great discoveries for the blessing of the humanity.
Scientists have an important role not only in avoiding inappropriate and dangerous
decisions, but also advising policymakers and other stakeholders about the best and wiser
moves to make towards a human-centered society, thereby fomenting scientific
knowledge and enhancing cross-cultural connections and joint research.
They should also not forget the objective limitations of Science, which is always
incomplete. With this purpose, we stress the importance of transferring knowledge among
all scientific disciplines, using a transdisciplinary cross-talks approach.
A few examples of how this may be done are presented in the paper.
Science and technology are essential tools for innovation.
To reap their fullest social potential, we need to articulate and solve the many aspects of
today‘s global issues that are rooted in the political, cultural, industrial and economic
realities of the human world.
―There are some objective limitations to Science itself. Science is still far away from its
goal of knowing the truth, which it always needs to be incomplete; also, science is not the
only way to search for Truth.‖
Our society is witnessing an era of ever-faster growing revolution at all levels, in an
exponential spiral pace that sometimes may awaken a feeling of vertigo. It doubtless goes
towards objective improvements in humanity and nature.
Conceptual Generalities
What do we understand from Science? Etymologically, the term ―Science‖ comes from
the Latin scientia (scire = to learn, to know), meaning a process of studying and knowing
the fundamental laws of nature, through a dialogue between theory and experiment.
It is one of the most remarkable inventions of humankind, a source of inspiration and
understanding, which lifts the veil of ignorance and superstition, is a catalyst for social
change and economic growth, and saves countless lives.
The function of science is to expand continually our knowledge of the phenomena of
nature, giving us an insight into the complex interrelations of phenomena, or rather
between the concepts used to interpret those phenomena.
The extension of the concept coincides with the extension in the classical Greco-Roman
times, in English the word ―science‖ is limited to natural sciences, also known as ―hard
sciences‖, something done in a laboratory; which involves taking measurements with
instruments, accurate to several decimal places; and controlled, repeatable experiments
where you keep everything fixed except for a few things that you allow to vary. Areas that
often conform well to these stereotypes include chemistry, physics, molecular biology.
This divide between natural sciences on the one side, widening our knowledge of the
phenomena of the nature and the relation between the different concepts used to interpret
them, and philosophy and arts, on the other side, focused more on human origin and
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
destiny, the project of life, the Weltanschauung, even when it realizes its impossibility of
achieving this purpose because there is no human way of solving everything, started in
the 19th century (indeed, the word ―scientist‖ was not coined until 1833) and according
to Richard Holmes (2016), it was destructive as it was neither a natural nor a necessary
divide.
They are traditionally divided between a primarily basic science, which studies the
fundamental laws of nature: in a free search for progress of pure knowledge, from
microcosms (atoms) to macrocosms (universe), and a secondarily applied science on how
the power of thinking can be increased by pursuing useful purposes and eventual specific
practical advantages like medicine, engineering, industry, cyberspace, economics, quality
of life, environmental and climatic changes…
"No single discipline can capture real•ity fully or claim to have the complete knowledge."
A new call to abolish this traditional division came from Venkatesh Narayanamurti,
former Dean of Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
(SEAS), in 2008, who described it as artificial, as it assumes a linear relationship that does
not always exist—discovery goes both ways, while inventions draw on scientific
knowledge and scientists gain insight from new devices and applications.
Narayanamurti proposes organizing science as a cycle that moves from discovery to
invention and back again, a highly nonlinear model, because they must feed on each other,
in a cross- and interdisciplinary work that breaks down disciplinary walls and encourages
collaboration, which has been successful in some of the top scientific institutions.
Some of the world‘s most important inventions were made not by basic scientists and
applied scientists working sequentially in isolation, but by those who teamed up, sharing
ideas and insights and even sometimes switching roles in cross- and interdisciplinary
work. For instance, Bell Labs, home to many important discoveries, such as the
development of the transistor in 1947, which laid the foundation for modern electronics
and earned eight Nobel Prizes, blurred lines between disciplines, talented personnel,
ample resources, and leadership (Powell, 2017).
There are other disciplines such as social sciences (sociology, economics, political
science, history…), and human sciences (philosophy, ethics, theology, art, psychology,
anthropology…), usually known as soft sciences. Do they really constitute science at all,
and do they deserve to stand beside the hard sciences?
A key problem is that the task of operationalizing intuitive concepts is inevitably more
difficult and less exact in the soft sciences, because there are so many uncontrolled
variables.
Far from colonizing social science under the banner of natural science, some social
scientists consider their disciplines as science, and others want to think that the robustness
of the philosophical approach is even more intense and transcendent than the so-called
natural sciences, say, nuclear physics, because they offer achievements of great
importance. Philosophy is forced to consider science as the best available evidence.
In its intention of achieving a complete construction of reality, philosophy focuses on
human origin and destiny, and its Weltanschauung, or project of life, even if it realizes the
impossibility of achieving this purpose—solving all problems, because there is no human
way of solving everything (see: Ramirez, in press).
The science of the 21st century is in most areas far too complex to be understood, let alone
experimentally verified, by any one person.
This necessity of knowing something in depth reveals how the different specialties of
knowledge become continuously more specialized, erecting barriers between disciplines,
even if, in the end, these barriers between disciplines may block the possibility of judging
and of doing better.
This is why we need an interdisciplinary approach, a cooperative integration between all
the branches of sciences, with each branch competent in a restricted field, but in contact
with the rest, keeping all the subjects in permeating touch with each other, for better
answers about being human and our single common Universe, because no single discipline
can capture reality fully or claim to have the complete knowledge. ―The moment a
problem of any kind is encountered, recourse is always made to interdisciplinary
solutions‖.
Moreover, conclusions from different disciplines cannot contradict one another.
―Sciences and humanities are actually not independent, but interdependent ways of getting
to know the world.‖
These interconnections and comprehensive approaches are becoming more and more
apparent at different levels: a) within a discipline, as the translational approach in
medicine shows, ―from field to bench, and from bench to bedside‖, i.e. before applying
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way
we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the
transformation will be unlike anything humankind has ever experienced before.
We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must
be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the
public and private sectors to academia and civil society, as Klaus Schwab, Founder and
Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, exposes in The 4th Industrial
Revolution (2016).*
"The desire to know the unknown is what inspires humankind‘s search for knowledge."
This Fourth Industrial Revolution is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is
blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres: ubiquitous, mobile
supercomputing, artificially intelligent (AI) robots, self-driving cars, neuro-technological
brain enhancements, genetic editing… The evidence of dramatic change, which is
happening at exponential speed, is all around us.
We cannot close our eyes to the information technology (IT) challenge, when diffusion is
continuously spreading throughout the scientific world and everybody is investing more
in it and in high-tech, and each time more intelligently. IT is an authentic revolution, with
higher efficiency, more productivity and less transport expenses, resulting in an increase
in quality of life.
Internet, a ubiquitous and an exponential growing web, has become the first global social
organization, linking and bringing together different people into a single global cultural
community, affecting international relations (Choucri, 2013) and forging a common sense
of humanity;
Mobile phone usage and internet access have exponentially risen: social media has
become important and fundamental, connecting families across vast distances, the internet
is now quintessentially helpful for e-banking, education or medical reasons, or for market
trading (80% smartphones; smart cities…); in the case of migrants and refugees their
importance goes well beyond staying in touch with people back home—phones have
become a lifeline, suggesting where they should go, and whom they should trust. They
even help us in dealing with important risks too, such as rumors leading to misinformation,
or sensitive data falling into the wrong hands
Artificial intelligence may help improve our decision-making capacity, and unravel the
complexity of biology (producing drugs) and advanced human health (diagnose), given
that living organisms are complex systems which process information using a combination
of hardware and software.
Internet of Things (IoT) is going to change business more than the industrial revolution
did one century ago, encouraging innovation and offering prediction and prevention as
one of its most valuable assets; it requires interoperability among all the different systems
and kinds of applications; for instance, a smart city with a digital ecosystem including
citizens, universities, hospitals, companies, government…
Even if we cannot live without IT, we should not forget that its use is not free of risk:
social media webs, so efficient for agglutination of attention, are not appropriate for a
public discourse, given their volatility: they are uncontrollable, unstable, short-lived and
amorphous, appear suddenly and disperse with the same speed, showing a lack of stability,
consistency and credibility, as the Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han (2017) argues:
digital communication enables instantaneous, impulsive reaction, being in fact responsible
for the disintegration of community and public space. Suspicions about security have also
risen, given the vulnerability of the present digitally connected cyber world (Ramirez &
Garcia-Segura, 2017).
The most important comment, however, is that the last decision belongs to humans,
because we are the ones who have to know how to use these new concepts adequately,
knowing how to discriminate in the event of eventual risks inherent to their above
described whirl.
Limits of Sciences
But if it is not true, it is not going to speed up computer software, it is not going to save
lives and it is not going to improve quality of life. However, experience says that science
can only disclose certain aspects of reality, but not the whole truth.
Universal truth is beyond the scope of any scientific enterprise. Science is not synonymous
with truth. Let us base this assertion on a couple of arguments: the tentative nature of
Science, by definition, the subjectivity of the perception, and the undeniable fact of the
existence of many scientific studies subject to error and to fraud.
The nature of Science is tentative by definition, by a scientific self-limitation to believe
only what is empirically verifiable, and the emphasis that reality is measurable. Scientific
concepts are not realities, but just models: Science is a hypothesis which produces laws
which, to be universally acceptable, do not need to have an overall contradiction, even
when described from different coordinate systems.
Examples of common assumptions, which have played significant roles in pursuit of truth:
the laws of energy conservation and of entropy increase, causality, constant light velocity
in vacuum… Science expands our knowledge of nature, giving us an insight into the
complex interrelations of phenomena, or rather between the concepts in which phenomena
are expressed.
But these generalizations, even if they are universally accepted as ultimate scientific
concepts, have often proven to be mistaken; they are just inductions, which may be useful,
only working hypotheses, drawing more or less probabilistic conclusions.
Science, thus, is only a guide to what is probable, an affair of probability; even if the odds
in favor of much of it are very high, it is impossible to reach the exact complete
knowledge.
There are no scientific dogmas, there are no certainties in science: all scientific theory is
open to challenge; scientific findings cannot be ignored, nor treated as mere matters of
faith.
Our own experience tells us that the subjective perceived phenomena, the human
sensations, are not reliable, because what is perceived cannot be separated from the
perceiver.
Knowledge is inevitably constructed by the knower in interaction with his nervous
activity, and we should never forget that each scientist has his own values, priorities and
may also have all sorts of cognitive biases, prejudices or unfounded speculations.
Much of the public hears what it wants to hear.
Thus, although science attempts to unify different ideas, prejudice and self-righteousness,
it bases itself on an illusion from a particular viewpoint, and there may be struggles. Many
things have to be scientifically understood.
The same things may look different if our viewpoint is different, as it is evident from the
quite well known Indian tale about six blind men who touch an elephant to learn what it
is like: The one who feels the leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the
tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a
tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who
feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the
elephant is like a solid pipe.
The different interpretations of the elephant imply that one‘s subjective experience is
inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth.
At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or
inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or
inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different
perspectives.
We cannot thus ignore the subjective experiences and the limitation of our faculties of
perception, given that the human cognitive capacity is limited.
The daily experience also tells us that many scientific studies are subject to error: for
instance, wine testers have more sophisticated sensations than ordinary people; the visual
field does not perceive any blind spot, even if there is one, known as optic papilla, in the
area of the retina where the optic nerve arises; the phi phenomenon takes place when two
successive lights are turned on, a sensation of movement of light is perceived, even if in
reality nothing moves; or take cryptomnesia, the capacity of remembering something we
are not conscious of remembering, mixing real and imaginary memories.
Many aspects of scientific progress may also be inhibited by fraud, not unusual at all,
since that the scientific system is based on trust: some 14% of scientists say that they have
witnessed it. For instance, given the logistical difficulties of providing visual evidence or
replicating precisely remote field work, there may be a number of irreproducible (and
often poorly conducted) studies, which may foment dishonesty, when scientists or
researchers invent data, but which in reality may have come from major manipulation to
outright fabrication of data.
Reality goes beyond the Limits of Science
We have just asserted that science only gives information about what is apprehended by
the senses, but these senses do not reveal the Reality.
This does not necessarily have to be restricted to physical terms, by suppressing its
subjective dimensions, even if—we have to admit it—these observations are subtler. If
we want to understand the human being and the universe, science has a lot to say, but it is
not the only test of validity. The uniqueness of a human mind is its ability to think about
things which do not fall under the senses. There are other ways of knowledge, but to see
life steadily and as a whole, we need something that will overpass the limits of science,
ethics, philosophy, art and theology, all of them equally valid and limited in isolation, like
science.
Science has plenty to say about many aspects of the world—about art, drawings,
paintings, poetry, sports, anything you mention…, but it has nothing or very little—to
say about many other basic questions, such as: What was the beginning of the universe†?
What is the universe made of‡? Might an alternative model of gravity remove its raison
d‘être? What is the origin of life on Earth? Are we alone in the universe or is there a
probability of life elsewhere in the universe? What is human nature? How much can
human life span be extended? How do organisms know when to stop growing? Can cancer
be cured or ageing be stopped? What genetic changes made us uniquely human? Is
―consciousness‖ present outside of organisms? Is morality hard-wired into the brain?
What are the limits of learning by machines? and so on.
We would like to add to these considerations that there is a need for a bridge between
science and religion, because both have things to say about the same subject matter.
They are different ways of studying the same territory; they have different kinds of things
to say; they are different phases in humanity‘s attempt to understand the world, and they
each have a strong contribution to make to the efforts of humans to cope with life.
Some aspects of the world can be known through empirical observation; others, through
religious thought. Science tells us more and more about how things work. Why they work,
and what is the overarching reality, are issues of an evolving religion. Science without
religion is soulless.
Religion without science is superstition, or, as Einstein stated, ―science without religion
is lame; religion without science is blind‖ (Ake, 2001). Consequently, science and religion
should not be seen as conflicting forces; on the contrary, they have to progress and share
the same pedestal: science has to be inspired by values such as love for Creation, respect
for life and promotion of human dignity.
In sum, recognizing the limits of scientific knowledge—science does not have the last
word—includes an explicit recognition of the tentative nature of science, combined with
the fact that some things are, theoretically, unknowable scientifically. In the end, we seem
to be brought to the theologian dictum of Tertullian, credo quia absurdum.
In spite of their limitations, scientists can play an important role in favouring a human-
centered society. We suggest a few simple examples of how this may be done.
An international team of experts, after estimating that as much as 85% of the US
biomedical research effort is wasted, has recently produced a manifesto with a master plan
to improve the quality of scientific research, ―to perform good, reliable, credible,
reproducible, trustworthy, useful science‖.
Its goal is to increase the speed at which researchers get closer to the truth, taking into
account four major categories: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, and
evaluation and incentives. Who are responsible for improving the quality of science?
Not just the researchers, but also other stakeholders, such as research institutions,
scientific journals, funders and regulatory agencies. Fomenting scientific knowledge and
enhancing cross-cultural connections and joint cooperative research have to be their main
goal.
Scientific cooperation in easing relations between governments:
Science is fundamentally an interactive, cooperative pursuit, which allows us to expose
the results of research to review and critique through a common language to more easily
cross cultures and borders.
Rachel Rothschild, analyzing centers on The European Monitoring and Evaluation
Programme (EMEP), which was designed to investigate the pollutants causing acid rain
and began operations under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in
1977, notes that the creation of the EMEP is an evidence of how addressing global
environmental concerns can pave the way for easing geopolitical conflicts.
―EMEP‘s formation illuminates the importance of developing technological networks and
international research projects on acid rain in furthering both détente among European
countries as well as international research and policies for environmental protection‖.
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore
The impetus for cooperating across the Iron Curtain on air pollution monitoring came
from a group of scientists and environmental officials in Norway working on acid rain.
Despite security concerns over disclosing power plant locations and resistance on placing
pollution monitoring stations within the Soviet Union, the Scandinavian scientists were
eventually able to secure the commitment of the Communist bloc to a Europe-wide
environmental research program—a breakthrough that resulted in limited technological
cooperation.
This development helped ease Cold War tensions, fostering subsequent political
relationships, which culminated in the 1979 UN Convention on Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution.
Another example is how science brought Americans and Russians together, just after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of Cold War, in late 1993, a US-Russian
collaboration into sensitive areas, like the safety and security of nuclear weapons and
materials.
The Russian Federal Nuclear Center VNIIEF and Los Alamos National Laboratory
conducted a ground-breaking joint experiment to study high-temperature
superconductivity in ultra-high magnetic fields, sharing each other‘s previously highly
secret sites on nuclear weapons programs. VNIIEF sent to Los Alamos explosive magnetic
flux compression generators from Russia, which were charged with US-supplied
explosives and stationary pulsed power machines to produce ultra-high electrical currents
and magnetic fields that, in turn, produced a wide range of high-energy density
environments needed to pursue a unique approach to civilian nuclear fusion.
This joint collaboration resulted in over 400 joint publications and presentations between
1993 and 2013, and opened the door for joint work in other areas.
These stories clearly demonstrate that countries can achieve some scientific collaboration
by working together, although it is less evident whether scientific cooperation can become
a precursor for political collaboration, i.e. whether science would be a driver for peace,
bringing peace to the region or the whole issue is just wishful thinking.
We hope science would play its part.
Although the fake news phenomenon in the context of science is not at all new, social
media disseminates this kind of news much faster among online social networks.
There is an increasing need for the scientific community to have a more prominent role in
social media, because people‘s decisions and strongly held beliefs are often at odds with
the conclusions and recommendations of empirical studies and scientific consensus; they
can be influenced by unscientific mass media and widely publicized campaigns providing
inaccurate information via disconnections between human emotion and rationality.
Surrounded by like-minded friends and followers, opinions are reinforced and become
more extreme, because simply presenting facts is unlikely to change beliefs when those
beliefs are rooted in the values and groupthink of a community.
It should bring us a necessary shot of humility: be sceptical of your own knowledge, and
the wisdom of your crowd (Regan, 2017; Sloman & Fernbach, 2017).
People often have strong opinions about issues they understand little about.
In some cases, the implications of misunderstanding or rejecting science are more or less
harmless, because what the public admires is a sense of wonder and fun about the world,
or answers to big existential questions, such as the popularization of physics, of animal
behaviour, of how brain works; or if someone believes the Earth is the centre of the
Universe or if there are other planetary systems, like the TRAPPIST-1 that was recently
announced by NASA. Does it really matter to our daily life?
In other cases, however, the issues that people face in their lives can be socially relevant
or even critical, like when they are focused on uncertainty perhaps under the label of
environment, health or food. Here are a few examples:
Vaccination is a particularly important issue to think about here, given the rise of the anti-
vaccination (anti-VAX) movement that has the potential to reverse the health gains
achieved through one of the most powerful interventions in medical history.
Researchers estimate that between 1963 and 2015, in the U.S. alone, nearly 200 million
cases of polio, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, adenovirus, rabies and hepatitis A and
approximately 450,000 deaths from these diseases were prevented, thanks to the
development of a human cell strain that allowed vaccines to be produced safely, with
Leonard Hayflick‘s discovery of WI-38, in 1962, to safely grow the viruses needed to
produce vaccines against more than 10 diseases. The anti-VAX is an emotionally-charged
phenomenon distrusting healthcare, undervaluing many vaccine-preventable diseases that
have become much less common, like smallpox and polio.
All this is going out of our hands, leading towards what is known as orthorexia, which is
the term for a condition that includes symptoms of obsessive behavior in pursuit of a
healthy diet:
If certain diets were previously rejected because of certain elements, considered
prohibitive, these days the main problem is with conservatives or colorants, antioxidants,
additives which pretend to conserve the life of products, avoiding mold or micro-
organisms which destroy the food, emulsions which prevent the food from sticking to
different surfaces, and thickeners which give body to sauces and stews.
All food has chemicals; even milk contains thiamine and riboflavin, i.e., vitamins B1 and
B2; and those called ―functional foods‖—because they affirm to have more nutrients like
calcium or Omega-3—keep adding chemicals to the orig•inal product. All this does not
make much sense to a world that flees from the ―artificial‖ searching for the 100 % pure
and natural.
The main aim of dietetic guidelines, rather than being red nutritional advice, should be to
help keep an ordered meal, adapted to each local cultural habits; f.i. 5 fruits/day, eat every
3 hrs, no carbohydrates after 5 PM, one glass of wine or beer… In few words, just follow
common sense!
How can scientists influence what is being presented in social platforms? By articulating
how this kind of science works when they talk to journalists, or when they advise
policymakers.
For instance, since as humans, we have all sorts of cognitive biases that come into play
when we try to evaluate the risks posed by any decision, scientists should offer an
alternative to bias-based decisions, enabling leaders to create more effective policies and
avoid a ―cure‖ which may be worse than the disease.
We are aware that using inaccurate and false information in the context of science is much
murkier and unclear, because usually there is no clear dichotomy between fake news and
real news, it challenges the position of science as a singular guide to decision-making, and
because it involves owning up to not having all of the answers all the time while still
maintaining a sense of authority.
"Scientists cannot neglect the ethical responsibility concerning their work."
But if we want ―to inoculate‖ the public against popular sticky misinformation campaigns,
including the damaging influence of some fake news that circulates on scientific matters
propagating myths on whatever topic, we cannot risk leaving this task in the hands of
journalists because, besides not being well-trained to assess the validity of all studies
(many of you may have already heard the difference between a scholar and a journalist:
A scholar is somebody who knows a lot about very few things, whereas a journalist knows
very little about a lot many things), they are attracted by the human interest of a news and
the hope of creating an attractive headline.
We do not wish to close our presentation without a brief comment on one of the most
important issues a scientist must face in his contribution towards a human-centered
society: the relationship of science with ethics.
Science has been a catalyst for social change and economic growth, and saved countless
lives. But, even if in se science is not good nor bad, it is evident that there is always an
eventual danger or evil concerning its application.
For instance, a new anti-malaria drug dispenser of a drug called ivermectin kills
Anopheles mosquitoes, the sort that transmit malaria. But, in addition to helping in the
eradication of this illness, protecting the people indirectly, by making their blood
poisonous to Anopheles, it may also cause other obvious ill effects in the digestive system,
turning human beings into chemical weapons.
The atomic research, besides its deadly applications we all know about (nuclear weapons),
may also lead to peaceful applications, like the ―tracer elements‖, which can be applied as
a radio-active method of diagnosis, in cancer radiotherapy or as effective fertilizers.
All stakeholders have to be conscious of the importance of investment in Science,
fostering scientific knowledge through the interconnections between all its branches with
an open mind, transdisciplinary approach, enhancing joint research and cross-cultural
connections, and providing funds not only focused on real life problems, but also on the
fundamental tenets that will underpin the future of a human-centered society.
If development of science is important, what is even more important is human
development, i.e. development of human beings themselves, which is all about ―growing
up truly to human beings, capable of governing themselves and the universe through the
well-balanced development of science, art & religion‖.
Mr.C.Dhamotharan, AP/ECE – RVS College of Engineering and Technology , Coimbatore