By Science at Risk
"The scientific ties between Ukraine and Russia were so strong that part of our scientific community, myself included, continued collaborating with Russian scientists even after 2014. Now, such collaboration is impossible." — Ukrainian physicist
Note from Sheeva: Sometimes, I forget that science happens all over the world, in the best of conditions as well as in the worst. War, for example, shows humanity at its worst, but I am a relentless optimist and believe that peace is always possible, even if it's difficult. It's always possible to create a better world.
Science at Risk is an organization supporting Ukrainian scientists who have suffered in the Russia-Ukraine War. Below, we publish an essay submitted to us by Science at Risk from by a Ukrainian physicist making the case for scientists to be involved politically.
For years, Ukrainian and Russian researchers collaborated, but as the war continues, working relationships have turned adversarial. It's clear that a solution is needed to establish lasting peace and prosperity. Could scientists themselves be part of the solution? Tara Pickens and I have previously written about ways science diplomacy can be a pathway to peace. Here on the blog, we have also talked about the fact that scientists, as part of society, can't afford to be apolitical, though they are often told to "stay in their lane."
Scientists all over the world, politics is in your lane. Please read the below reflection from Oleh Feia, PhD, and share it with your scientific colleagues.
In 2007, as a fresh graduate from a Ukrainian town near Dnipro, I enrolled in the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT) through its so-called Kyiv branch. The program required four years of study in Moscow, followed by completing a Master's thesis at a Ukrainian research institute. The last cohort of Ukrainian students entered MIPT this way in 2014—the year Russia occupied Crimea and initiated a brutal war in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Subsequently, the program was terminated. Despite this, the scientific ties between Ukraine and Russia were so strong that part of our scientific community, myself included, continued collaborating with Russian scientists even after 2014. Now, such collaboration is impossible. The bonds are irreparably broken, and Russia bears the responsibility. The university where I once studied now faces international sanctions for its involvement in the war, with many of its units preparing researchers and engineers for Russia's military apparatus.
In 2023, I participated in the Science at Risk project, investigating how Ukrainian scientists coped with the war. My colleagues gathered numerous testimonies from scientists who fled the war, lived under occupation while safeguarding museum collections, evacuated their universities, or saw their life's work destroyed by Russian bombs or plundered by the Russian occupying forces. In the early days of the invasion, many of these scientists, in an act of desperation, reached out to their former Russian colleagues, imploring them to take action or at least vocally express disagreement with the Russian government's actions. Most letters were met with silence. Many answers contained aggression, advice to accept fate and surrender, or hypocritically "neutral" statements like "science is beyond politics."
"...science itself is not beyond politics. The conduct and application of science are deeply intertwined with societal and political contexts."
Russian scientists favor this statement. They invoke it repeatedly to deflect responsibility for their involvement in the war, their silence, and their willful ignorance of the war crimes committed by their country and fellow citizens. While it's true that scientific results invariably describe nature and that the laws of nature are unaffected by political regimes—even ones as cruel as Russia's—science itself is not beyond politics. The conduct and application of science are deeply intertwined with societal and political contexts.
Universities are not beyond politics. They are deeply involved in the war. For technical universities like MIPT, which was established during the Cold War era for the Soviet nuclear project, the situation is clear—they provide technological support for the military industry. Humanities universities are working to legitimize the war for both domestic and international audiences. Disciplines such as sociology, history, law, and pedagogy have become loyal servants of the Russian regime. Moreover, universities are perhaps the most politically charged institutions. In the early days of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian Union of Rectors, representing more than 200 leaders of major universities, published a statement supporting the war. Propagandists' lectures, erosion of the last vestiges of academic freedom and independent thinking, and war-supporting activities such as weaving camouflage nets and collecting funds for military units. These actions have left little room for those who wish to remain uninvolved in the war. It is the weaponization of universities.
Photo credit: Unsplash
The situation is far worse for Ukrainian universities in occupied territories. The Russian Ministry of Education and Science and the Russian Academy of Sciences have effectively absorbed these institutions. They've not only seized buildings, museum collections and scientific equipment, but, more crucially, destroyed the independent spirit of these universities and disrupted the lives of faculty members, erasing all traces of Ukrainian identity. These universities now function as part of a totalitarian machine, used for propaganda to showcase how the remaining Ukrainian staff are supposedly accepting the new Russian reality. Any sympathy for Ukraine is now life-threatening.
Scientists are not beyond politics. A significant portion of the Russian scientific community supports the war. In my experience, these individuals frequently invoke the phrase "science beyond politics." They may spread war propaganda or justifications, but when someone challenges their messages, they suddenly claim that science is apolitical. After the February 24th invasion, some Russian scientists fled the country. A few left for political reasons, expressing their anti-war views (though they might still harbor Russian colonialist attitudes towards Ukraine—a separate issue). Others fled out of fear of economic collapse or mobilization, while some simply seized the opportunity to leave.
Some scientists attempt to live in denial of the surrounding atrocities—by doing so, they implicitly side with the aggressor. Others hold strong anti-war views but lack the means to leave. They immerse themselves in work, suppressing their feelings with the notion that this compromise allows them to create something valuable or simply survive. Regarding such individuals, the prominent Ukrainian scientist Ahatanhel Krymsky (1871–1942), who was unjustly arrested and later murdered in prison by Soviet totalitarian authorities, wrote poignantly:
"Every scientist or poet who finds the strength to work sincerely under our despotic system and does not go to protest and fight against that system, he simply sanctifies despotism and cements it with his conscientious work. For even though such a scientist or poet is silent and works quietly away from the world, his or her silent work seems to shout loudly to the whole world: "The modern system is not bad at all! After all, look, science, poetry, and cultural work are developing and flourishing under the modern system!" "The work of passive scientists, poets, and artists is a great support for despotism against those who fight for freedom..."
The aforementioned individuals may feel the tragedy of their situation. However, their lives have remained largely unchanged. Before sympathizing them, consider the plight of Ukrainian scientists whose lives have been dramatically altered. These are people who have lost their homes and institutions, whose relatives or friends have died, or have joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine, or who have decided to enlist in the military themselves to defend their country. As of July 2024, an incomplete list of Ukrainian scientists killed by Russians numbers 138 persons.
For authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, science serves as a tool to legitimize themselves, particularly international science. It's their shiny trophy. Most people associate science with progress, a better life, and curiosity about the world. Scientists are respected across all societies. These regimes exploit this perception for their own propaganda. A Ukrainian investigation team has found hundreds of articles in international scientific journals that list Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Mariupol, and other occupied territories as part of Russia. Despite some publishing houses having rules forbidding such affiliations, the practice persists. Since 2022, several major collaborations like CERN have fully or partially halted work with Russian-affiliated scientists. This prompted an immediate government reaction, invoking the familiar refrain that "science is beyond politics."
When a scientific journal accepts an article by scientists affiliated with a Russian university, or when an international group collaborates with a Russian university, or when scientists from these universities are invited to conferences, it creates a narrative: "Perhaps the Russian regime isn't so bad. They may have started an unprovoked war, but look at the quality of their scientific work." This is the legitimization of evil. After a few cycles of such legitimization, the first part—"they started an unprovoked war"—fades away. And only the notion of 'science beyond politics' remains. This is exactly what the Russian regime desires.
— Oleh Feia, PhD in Solid State Physics, Kyiv Academic University, Science at Risk analytic
No comments:
Post a Comment