During the pandemic, many of us weathered the period of crisis by finding rejuvenation, relaxation, and reflection in the outdoors. In the process, we remade both nature and ourselves.
I wonder what would happen if we think of “science” as a form of service. Maybe then, it will be clearer that it is crucial to reflect upon who is served, and who is not, with the policy decisions made in the name of science.
The climate moonshots of this past week will only be feasible if the public sector’s primary decision-makers have the literacy to think about the underlying problems relatively scientifically — understanding the long-term impact, recognizing the value of technological innovation to solve specific problems, and mobilizing to enable the systems-wide approach necessary to prepare and respond for any issue of such a magnitude.
Non-fungible tokens, despite being a distant reality, are a valuable thought experiment: What does the world look like when individuals can purchase a stake in that which others create?
Much like the challenges that plagued the United States last year, many of the problems we are facing in 2021 will require us to find synergy between systems and perspectives that often clash — including between the public and private sectors, the individual and the greater population, and federal and state governments. Understanding these three sets of dynamics will ensure a better approach toward accelerating pandemic mitigation and recovery.
Breaking up Big Tech will do little to disrupt the technocratic power dynamics that largely drive the pulse of this country. The real conversation should be focused on the soft power that these companies exert, culturally and politically.
The politicization of the science surrounding COVID-19 has crippled our response to the pandemic and will continue to do so if we continue along this path. It is necessary to invest in the necessary systemic shifts to turn around this pandemic and build a better relationship between science and society for tomorrow.
