1 Introduction

“Knowledge is power” is now a well-known equation. Although its debut dates back to the tenth- century book Nahj Al-Balagha in which Imam Ali noted that “Knowledge is power and it can command obedience” (Saying 147.5), the most famous occurrence was made in 1597. “Scientia potentia est” (knowledge is power), Sir Francis Bacon exclaimed in his work Meditationes Sacrae. Bacon meant that the experimentally based investigation and manipulation of natural phenomena should eventually enable humans to free themselves from tyranny and become the mastery of the natural world (Garc ́ıa, 2011). However, he did not explain the mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is translated into power.

After Bacon, many intellects have delved deeper into the discussion on the relationship between power and knowledge. For example, both Pierre Bourdieu and Michael Foucault identified the correlative constitution of power and knowledge: knowledge gives rise to power and vice versa. The two elements are constantly structuring and being structured by one another (Garc ́ıa, 2011). However, they di↵er in their view on power. To Bourdieu, power implies class frictions and specific histories of domination and emancipation hence should be morally denounced, but to Foucault, power is a neutral term which simply points unpredictive directionalities.

Like power, scientific knowledge also entails pluralistic meaning. Natural philosophy was largely book-based in the fifteenth century and gradually became observation-based throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the eighteenth century, scientific knowledge was tied to mathematical descriptions. Today, it is the consenses built by scientists in the form of articles published in scientific journals. The meaning of scientific knowledge evolves over time and it is unfair to adopt a single definition and dismiss others. Recognising that there is a missing link between knowledge and power, and that both power and knowledge can assume various forms, this essay uses examples from the history of science to identify and explain three major mechanisms through which knowledge becomes economic power, intellectual authority and political dominance.

2 Knowledge and Economic Power

Knowledge becomes economic power by producing monopolies. Knowledge can be applied to make technology. Technology can be monopolised if it has significant advantage over all existing ones. Monopoly in itself is power. A monopoly not only possess pricing power to set the product’s price above marginal cost without losing customers but also dominancy because the apparent strength of its product prevents others from entering the market. For example, the firm Boulton Watt had a technological monopoly in Britain in the late 1790s. The company was the exclusive manufacturer and seller of Watt’s steam engine, which was five-time more ecient than the Newcomen’s steam engine and saved 75% on coal costs. It was because James Watt applied knowledge from mechanics and thermodynamics knowledge to modify Newcomen’s prototype. For example, informed by the law of conservation of energy, he added a separate condensing cylinder to minimise heat loss from the power cylinder. Moreover, the Watt’s steam engine could operate anywhere unlike Newcomen’s steam engine which used water wheels hence must be built by the river. The superior eciency and adaptability of Watt’s steam engine gave Boulton Watt an edge to outcompete its rivals and hence control the market of engines. In this way, Watt’s knowledge was converted to economic power.

Such monopolies enable groups to generate capital, which can then be used to exert further power. Although capital in itself is not power, the dominant capital groups could make use of it to reshape or reorder their society (Nitzan, et.al, 2009). People with capital, for example, could exert power over scientific knowledge that they consider harmful to their business. In 1953 tobacco companies in the United States came together to fund research projects to disprove the link between smoking and lung cancer. People with capital could also initiate direct attacks on scientists who produce such knowledge, often through controlling the media as mouthpiece. For instance, Chinese pharmaceutical companies producing Shuanghuanglian, an oral herbal remedy, used state media to attack sceptics who raised doubt on the e↵ectiveness of Shuanghuanglian in treating COVID-19, defaming them as “traitors who are brainwashed by Western countries to shatter traditional values” (Li, 2020). Through application, knowledge enables monopolies that dominate the market, creating capital that can then influence the direction of science.

Some people cast doubt on the “knowledge, application, economic power” roadmap. For examples, it is indeed dicult to appreciate the monetary value of gravitational waves, given the LIDO lab spent 620 billion dollars on detecting it. And surely not all knowledge is converted to edgy application that would enable technological monopoly. To respond to such doubt, it must be clarified that the assumption that knowledge has the potential to generate power does not mean that it has already done so, or that it has done so in direct ways. Some knowledge takes years to be translated into application while others never have the chance. For instance, although superconductivity was discovered in 1911 by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, who observed that the resistance of solid mercury abruptly disappeared at the temperature of 4.2 K, it was only 50 years later when Oxford Instruments and Siemens started applying it to produce large-volume and high-intensity magnetic fields required for MRI and NMR and generated billions of US dollars. Moreover, it must be noted that the group of people discovering knowledge often di↵er from the group possessing the capital. For example, Evangelista Torricelli, the discoverer of atmospheric pressure, and Thomas Newcomen, the first to conceive the steam engine, did not have access to the capital that the steam engine created. The capital often lies in the hands of entrepreneurs who open the market for a particular application and promote it to wide audience. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to say that scientific knowledge has inherent potential to become power.

3 Knowledge and Intellectual Authority

Knowledge becomes the intellectual authority through institutionalisation. Organising scientists to form institutions confers power to knowledge as it is more readily accepted as scientific truth. For example, when John Wilkins proposed the idea that the Moon would house living beings in 1638 as an individual, he faced mush scepticism. However, when he was admitted to Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge in 1663, people took his view more seriously. Institutions also shape normative scientific practices, hence legitimising the knowledge produced via such prac- tices. For examples, in the mid-seventeenth century, some English natural philosophers conducted experimentations in their studies, kitchens or backyards. Some like Boyle even had purpose-built laboratories at residences they inhabited (Shapin, 1988). The founding of the Royal Society in 1660 united these natural philosophers who shared the belief that empirical testing, rather than ancient texts, should be the foundation of reliable knowledge. The royal patronage and social status of its members added legitimacy to empirical scientific method. Moreover, the Society actively promoted empirical science by inviting the public to the laboratories to witness experiments and performing demonstrations in front of the public, such as the famous Boyle’s air pump demonstration. Under the influence of the Royal Society, many purposely-built laboratories were soon established around the country. For example, Elias Ashmole, a member of the Royal Society, planned the Museum at Oxford which would include a chemical laboratory and it was opened in 1683.

Knowledge also gains intellectual power with the rising status of its producers. When scientists gain respect, their knowledge also become highly-valued to guide civic life. The professionalisation of scientists began around 1800 when the newly established National Institute of Arts and Sciences in France set precedence to provide salaries to its sta↵. Since then, scientific research became a profession just like teaching rather than being undertaken as a hobby by gentlemen. It was a profession of prestige because admission to the Institute was strictly merit-based. Professionalisation assigns new social roles and responsibilities to scientists and their knowledge (Brown, 1993). The value of science for society has been recognised by the general public through penicillin and atomic bomb. Penicillin, the first antibiotics discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928 was estimated to have saved at least 80 million lives (Gottfried, 2005). Although few scientists were involved in the iconic projects as the Manhattan Project, their success elevated the entire discipline as physicist became a popular career after the World War Two. Even biologists started to integrating methods from physics, opening a new field called “biophysics”. Although the prestige associated with scientists is a relatively modern perception, it assigns scientists the role as mentors and advisors hence their knowledge gains power to influence civic life. In the current COVID-19 global pandemic, scientists are expected to evaluate the situation and the insights they produced are used to guide public health policies, ranging from whether the general public should wear face masks to when is safe to lift social distancing orders.

4 Knowledge and Political Dominance

So far in our discussion the power of knowledge arises from potentia, the inherent ability of intact knowledge to be turned into capital or regarded as authority. However, knowledge can be manipulated by the knowers as a tool to justify, assert and reinforce political dominance, often but not necessar- ily through exploitation. For example, scientific knowledge enabled and justified imperial control. Telegraphy was deemed important for military security and administrative e↵ectiveness on colonies. Between 1850s and 1860s, the British devoted significant resources to solve technical challenges in developing transatlantic telegraphy. Atlantic Telegraphy Company was formed and chaired by Sir William Thomson who invented marine version of mirror galvanometer which could measure minute electrical signals. The success of transatlantic telegraphy strengthened the Britain’s power of imperial control over distant parts of the world. Moreover, the West used their superior scientific knowledge as a way to allege that non-Europeans were intellectually inferior and so deserved and needed to be colonised. In the 1835 memo “Minute on Indian Education”, British politician Thomas Macaulay denounced Indian languages because they lacked scientific words. He suggested that languages such as Sanskrit and Arabic were “barren of useful knowledge”, “fruitful of monstrous superstitions,” and contained “false history, false astronomy, false medicine” (Deb Roy, 2018).

The history of imperial science has shown us that asymmetry in knowledge allows the superior to exploit and control. Power is dynamic and determined by social context (Wartenberg, 1990). When such asymmetry disappears, the power dynamic changes accordingly. Initially sickle cell anaemia was understood as a heredity disorder exclusive to black individuals. In 1910 James Herrick discovered “peculiar, elongated and sickle-shaped red blood corpuscles” in a black patient with severe anaemia. After Herrick, Verne Mason and John Huck observed numerous other cases, all in black patients. Such understanding put the white population in a position to exercise racism and cultural imperialism. They feared that if inter-racial breeding happened, such disease would spread and “contaminate” the purity of the Caucasian race. Moreover, they were concerned about potential loss of economic profit because sickle cell anaemia caused ineciency and laziness which lowered the productivity of black labour. However, in the late 1940s, Linus Pauling used electrophoretic analysis to show that sickle cell anaemia is actually a haemoglobinopathy. Since haemoglobin is a shared molecule among all humans, black and white individuals were now equal in front of the disease. This is the turning point to their power dynamic. The black population called for research attention to address their experiential su↵erings caused by symptoms such as joint pains, abdominal pains and leg ulcers. This area had previously been ignored because the white population was more interested in constructing what made black persons di↵erent. In addition, African Americans exploited the stigma they had endured due to sickle cell anaemia as leverage to demand for Civil Rights. The changing knowledge about sickle cell anaemia shaped the relative power between black and white populations. When the knowledge was revised, the two groups were no longer asymmetrical hence their power dynamic changed.

Not only can the knowers be exploited, knowledge per se is subject to distortion to serve people’s in- terests. Politicians cherry-pick and tailor results from scientific research to suit their political agenda (Pielke, 2007). For instance, Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection has probably su↵ered the heaviest distortion in the history of science. Darwin embarked on the Beagle’s voyage as a naturalist in 1831. On the Galapagos Islands, he observed that species of finches vary from island to island. He hence proposed that the finches have common ancestors and undergo a transformation process called evolution, and that those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environ- ment will survive. This mechanism is called “natural selection” characterise by the slogan “survival of the fittest”. The new theory of evolution destabilized existing social relations (Grundmann Stehr, 2012). The elites feared that their power to reign over others would diminish if nature does the work of selection. Therefore, they extrapolated the original biological concepts of evolution which is the change in heritable traits to sociology and economics, creating the concept of “Social Darwinism” which assumes that “society advances where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hinderance” (Spencer, 1992).

Social Darwinism not only helped to legitimise the political dominance of the elites but was also used to justify eugenic policies. For example, Connecticut made it illegal for people with epilepsy or who were “feeble-minded” to marry in 1896. Later in 1909, a eugenics law was passed in California allowing for state institutions to sterilize those deemed “unfit”. The popularity of eugenics in the United States could be explained by the pervading hostility towards the influx of immigrants. The original habitants worried that the immigrants would worsen the quality their community, hence sterilisation was favoured as a means to preserve the supremacy of those higher in the social hierarchy. These examples illustrate how evolutionary science was abused to by those in power to assert political dominance. In this way, the distorted form of knowledge embodies power of the knower.

5 Conclusion

The history of science has demonstrated that scientific knowledge can generate economic power, be granted intellectual authority through institution and status of scientist, and can be manipulated to assert political domination. The myriad of examples has proven that “knowledge is power”. Compared to any period in history, our modern society has the easiest access to the most voluminous scientific knowledge. Acquisition of scientific knowledge is more democratised than ever. Some people may question whether “knowledge is power” is still relevant in today’s context. Recognising that scientific knowledge has inherent potential to be translated into economic power to shape the order of the market and society, we need to think how to ethically capitalise its potential in a way that does not put any people at disadvantage. Acknowledging that institutionalisation and reputation of scientists confer scientific knowledge intellectual authority, we need to be careful not to let bureaucracy within institutions hinder the creation of new knowledge. As for us the knowers, possessing scientific knowledge empowers us to impose or resist political dominance. We need to act with discretion not to abuse the intellectual products of our predecessors.

References

Brown, R. (1993). Modern Science: Institutionalization of Knowledge and Rationalization of Power. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 153-168. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4121563

Deb Roy, R. (2018). Decolonise science – time to end another imperial era. https://theconversation.com/decolonise-science-time-to-end-another-imperial-era-89189

Garc ́ıa, J.M.R (2001). Scientia Potestas Est – Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon to Michel Foucault. Neohelicon 28, 109–121 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011901104984

Gooday, G. (1990). Precision Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain. The British Journal for the History of Science, 23(1), 25-51. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4026801

Gottfried, J. (2005). History Repeating? Avoiding a Return to the Pre-Antibiotic Age (2005 Third Year Paper), Harvard University’s DASH repository.

Grundmann, R., Stehr, N. (2012). Introduction. In The Power of Scientific Knowledge: From Re- search to Public Policy (pp. 1-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139137003.002

Li, G. (2020). The magic power of TCM as COVID-19 therapeutics. From http://m.cwzg.cn/politics/202002/54745.html?page=full

Nitzan, Jonathan and Bichler, Shimshon. (2009). Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder.

RIPE Series in Global Political Economy. Routledge.

Pielke, Jr, R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

Shapin, S. (1988). The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England. Isis, 79, 373-404.

Spencer, H. (1992). The man versus the state : With six essays on government, society, and freedom. Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Classics.

Wartenberg, T. (1990). The forms of power : From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

1 Introduction

“Knowledge is power” is now a well-known equation. Although its debut dates back to the tenth- century book Nahj Al-Balagha in which Imam Ali noted that “Knowledge is power and it can command obedience” (Saying 147.5), the most famous occurrence was made in 1597. “Scientia potentia est” (knowledge is power), Sir Francis Bacon exclaimed in his work Meditationes Sacrae. Bacon meant that the experimentally based investigation and manipulation of natural phenomena should eventually enable humans to free themselves from tyranny and become the mastery of the natural world (Garc ́ıa, 2011). However, he did not explain the mechanisms by which scientific knowledge is translated into power.

After Bacon, many intellects have delved deeper into the discussion on the relationship between power and knowledge. For example, both Pierre Bourdieu and Michael Foucault identified the correlative constitution of power and knowledge: knowledge gives rise to power and vice versa. The two elements are constantly structuring and being structured by one another (Garc ́ıa, 2011). However, they di↵er in their view on power. To Bourdieu, power implies class frictions and specific histories of domination and emancipation hence should be morally denounced, but to Foucault, power is a neutral term which simply points unpredictive directionalities.

Like power, scientific knowledge also entails pluralistic meaning. Natural philosophy was largely book-based in the fifteenth century and gradually became observation-based throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the eighteenth century, scientific knowledge was tied to mathematical descriptions. Today, it is the consenses built by scientists in the form of articles published in scientific journals. The meaning of scientific knowledge evolves over time and it is unfair to adopt a single definition and dismiss others. Recognising that there is a missing link between knowledge and power, and that both power and knowledge can assume various forms, this essay uses examples from the history of science to identify and explain three major mechanisms through which knowledge becomes economic power, intellectual authority and political dominance.

2 Knowledge and Economic Power

Knowledge becomes economic power by producing monopolies. Knowledge can be applied to make technology. Technology can be monopolised if it has significant advantage over all existing ones. Monopoly in itself is power. A monopoly not only possess pricing power to set the product’s price above marginal cost without losing customers but also dominancy because the apparent strength of its product prevents others from entering the market. For example, the firm Boulton Watt had a technological monopoly in Britain in the late 1790s. The company was the exclusive manufacturer and seller of Watt’s steam engine, which was five-time more ecient than the Newcomen’s steam engine and saved 75% on coal costs. It was because James Watt applied knowledge from mechanics and thermodynamics knowledge to modify Newcomen’s prototype. For example, informed by the law of conservation of energy, he added a separate condensing cylinder to minimise heat loss from the power cylinder. Moreover, the Watt’s steam engine could operate anywhere unlike Newcomen’s steam engine which used water wheels hence must be built by the river. The superior eciency and adaptability of Watt’s steam engine gave Boulton Watt an edge to outcompete its rivals and hence control the market of engines. In this way, Watt’s knowledge was converted to economic power.

Such monopolies enable groups to generate capital, which can then be used to exert further power. Although capital in itself is not power, the dominant capital groups could make use of it to reshape or reorder their society (Nitzan, et.al, 2009). People with capital, for example, could exert power over scientific knowledge that they consider harmful to their business. In 1953 tobacco companies in the United States came together to fund research projects to disprove the link between smoking and lung cancer. People with capital could also initiate direct attacks on scientists who produce such knowledge, often through controlling the media as mouthpiece. For instance, Chinese pharmaceutical companies producing Shuanghuanglian, an oral herbal remedy, used state media to attack sceptics who raised doubt on the e↵ectiveness of Shuanghuanglian in treating COVID-19, defaming them as “traitors who are brainwashed by Western countries to shatter traditional values” (Li, 2020). Through application, knowledge enables monopolies that dominate the market, creating capital that can then influence the direction of science.

Some people cast doubt on the “knowledge, application, economic power” roadmap. For examples, it is indeed dicult to appreciate the monetary value of gravitational waves, given the LIDO lab spent 620 billion dollars on detecting it. And surely not all knowledge is converted to edgy application that would enable technological monopoly. To respond to such doubt, it must be clarified that the assumption that knowledge has the potential to generate power does not mean that it has already done so, or that it has done so in direct ways. Some knowledge takes years to be translated into application while others never have the chance. For instance, although superconductivity was discovered in 1911 by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, who observed that the resistance of solid mercury abruptly disappeared at the temperature of 4.2 K, it was only 50 years later when Oxford Instruments and Siemens started applying it to produce large-volume and high-intensity magnetic fields required for MRI and NMR and generated billions of US dollars. Moreover, it must be noted that the group of people discovering knowledge often di↵er from the group possessing the capital. For example, Evangelista Torricelli, the discoverer of atmospheric pressure, and Thomas Newcomen, the first to conceive the steam engine, did not have access to the capital that the steam engine created. The capital often lies in the hands of entrepreneurs who open the market for a particular application and promote it to wide audience. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to say that scientific knowledge has inherent potential to become power.

3 Knowledge and Intellectual Authority

Knowledge becomes the intellectual authority through institutionalisation. Organising scientists to form institutions confers power to knowledge as it is more readily accepted as scientific truth. For example, when John Wilkins proposed the idea that the Moon would house living beings in 1638 as an individual, he faced mush scepticism. However, when he was admitted to Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge in 1663, people took his view more seriously. Institutions also shape normative scientific practices, hence legitimising the knowledge produced via such prac- tices. For examples, in the mid-seventeenth century, some English natural philosophers conducted experimentations in their studies, kitchens or backyards. Some like Boyle even had purpose-built laboratories at residences they inhabited (Shapin, 1988). The founding of the Royal Society in 1660 united these natural philosophers who shared the belief that empirical testing, rather than ancient texts, should be the foundation of reliable knowledge. The royal patronage and social status of its members added legitimacy to empirical scientific method. Moreover, the Society actively promoted empirical science by inviting the public to the laboratories to witness experiments and performing demonstrations in front of the public, such as the famous Boyle’s air pump demonstration. Under the influence of the Royal Society, many purposely-built laboratories were soon established around the country. For example, Elias Ashmole, a member of the Royal Society, planned the Museum at Oxford which would include a chemical laboratory and it was opened in 1683.

Knowledge also gains intellectual power with the rising status of its producers. When scientists gain respect, their knowledge also become highly-valued to guide civic life. The professionalisation of scientists began around 1800 when the newly established National Institute of Arts and Sciences in France set precedence to provide salaries to its sta↵. Since then, scientific research became a profession just like teaching rather than being undertaken as a hobby by gentlemen. It was a profession of prestige because admission to the Institute was strictly merit-based. Professionalisation assigns new social roles and responsibilities to scientists and their knowledge (Brown, 1993). The value of science for society has been recognised by the general public through penicillin and atomic bomb. Penicillin, the first antibiotics discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928 was estimated to have saved at least 80 million lives (Gottfried, 2005). Although few scientists were involved in the iconic projects as the Manhattan Project, their success elevated the entire discipline as physicist became a popular career after the World War Two. Even biologists started to integrating methods from physics, opening a new field called “biophysics”. Although the prestige associated with scientists is a relatively modern perception, it assigns scientists the role as mentors and advisors hence their knowledge gains power to influence civic life. In the current COVID-19 global pandemic, scientists are expected to evaluate the situation and the insights they produced are used to guide public health policies, ranging from whether the general public should wear face masks to when is safe to lift social distancing orders.

4 Knowledge and Political Dominance

So far in our discussion the power of knowledge arises from potentia, the inherent ability of intact knowledge to be turned into capital or regarded as authority. However, knowledge can be manipulated by the knowers as a tool to justify, assert and reinforce political dominance, often but not necessar- ily through exploitation. For example, scientific knowledge enabled and justified imperial control. Telegraphy was deemed important for military security and administrative e↵ectiveness on colonies. Between 1850s and 1860s, the British devoted significant resources to solve technical challenges in developing transatlantic telegraphy. Atlantic Telegraphy Company was formed and chaired by Sir William Thomson who invented marine version of mirror galvanometer which could measure minute electrical signals. The success of transatlantic telegraphy strengthened the Britain’s power of imperial control over distant parts of the world. Moreover, the West used their superior scientific knowledge as a way to allege that non-Europeans were intellectually inferior and so deserved and needed to be colonised. In the 1835 memo “Minute on Indian Education”, British politician Thomas Macaulay denounced Indian languages because they lacked scientific words. He suggested that languages such as Sanskrit and Arabic were “barren of useful knowledge”, “fruitful of monstrous superstitions,” and contained “false history, false astronomy, false medicine” (Deb Roy, 2018).

The history of imperial science has shown us that asymmetry in knowledge allows the superior to exploit and control. Power is dynamic and determined by social context (Wartenberg, 1990). When such asymmetry disappears, the power dynamic changes accordingly. Initially sickle cell anaemia was understood as a heredity disorder exclusive to black individuals. In 1910 James Herrick discovered “peculiar, elongated and sickle-shaped red blood corpuscles” in a black patient with severe anaemia. After Herrick, Verne Mason and John Huck observed numerous other cases, all in black patients. Such understanding put the white population in a position to exercise racism and cultural imperialism. They feared that if inter-racial breeding happened, such disease would spread and “contaminate” the purity of the Caucasian race. Moreover, they were concerned about potential loss of economic profit because sickle cell anaemia caused ineciency and laziness which lowered the productivity of black labour. However, in the late 1940s, Linus Pauling used electrophoretic analysis to show that sickle cell anaemia is actually a haemoglobinopathy. Since haemoglobin is a shared molecule among all humans, black and white individuals were now equal in front of the disease. This is the turning point to their power dynamic. The black population called for research attention to address their experiential su↵erings caused by symptoms such as joint pains, abdominal pains and leg ulcers. This area had previously been ignored because the white population was more interested in constructing what made black persons di↵erent. In addition, African Americans exploited the stigma they had endured due to sickle cell anaemia as leverage to demand for Civil Rights. The changing knowledge about sickle cell anaemia shaped the relative power between black and white populations. When the knowledge was revised, the two groups were no longer asymmetrical hence their power dynamic changed.

Not only can the knowers be exploited, knowledge per se is subject to distortion to serve people’s in- terests. Politicians cherry-pick and tailor results from scientific research to suit their political agenda (Pielke, 2007). For instance, Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection has probably su↵ered the heaviest distortion in the history of science. Darwin embarked on the Beagle’s voyage as a naturalist in 1831. On the Galapagos Islands, he observed that species of finches vary from island to island. He hence proposed that the finches have common ancestors and undergo a transformation process called evolution, and that those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environ- ment will survive. This mechanism is called “natural selection” characterise by the slogan “survival of the fittest”. The new theory of evolution destabilized existing social relations (Grundmann Stehr, 2012). The elites feared that their power to reign over others would diminish if nature does the work of selection. Therefore, they extrapolated the original biological concepts of evolution which is the change in heritable traits to sociology and economics, creating the concept of “Social Darwinism” which assumes that “society advances where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hinderance” (Spencer, 1992).

Social Darwinism not only helped to legitimise the political dominance of the elites but was also used to justify eugenic policies. For example, Connecticut made it illegal for people with epilepsy or who were “feeble-minded” to marry in 1896. Later in 1909, a eugenics law was passed in California allowing for state institutions to sterilize those deemed “unfit”. The popularity of eugenics in the United States could be explained by the pervading hostility towards the influx of immigrants. The original habitants worried that the immigrants would worsen the quality their community, hence sterilisation was favoured as a means to preserve the supremacy of those higher in the social hierarchy. These examples illustrate how evolutionary science was abused to by those in power to assert political dominance. In this way, the distorted form of knowledge embodies power of the knower.

5 Conclusion

The history of science has demonstrated that scientific knowledge can generate economic power, be granted intellectual authority through institution and status of scientist, and can be manipulated to assert political domination. The myriad of examples has proven that “knowledge is power”. Compared to any period in history, our modern society has the easiest access to the most voluminous scientific knowledge. Acquisition of scientific knowledge is more democratised than ever. Some people may question whether “knowledge is power” is still relevant in today’s context. Recognising that scientific knowledge has inherent potential to be translated into economic power to shape the order of the market and society, we need to think how to ethically capitalise its potential in a way that does not put any people at disadvantage. Acknowledging that institutionalisation and reputation of scientists confer scientific knowledge intellectual authority, we need to be careful not to let bureaucracy within institutions hinder the creation of new knowledge. As for us the knowers, possessing scientific knowledge empowers us to impose or resist political dominance. We need to act with discretion not to abuse the intellectual products of our predecessors.

References

Brown, R. (1993). Modern Science: Institutionalization of Knowledge and Rationalization of Power. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 153-168. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4121563

Deb Roy, R. (2018). Decolonise science – time to end another imperial era. https://theconversation.com/decolonise-science-time-to-end-another-imperial-era-89189

Garc ́ıa, J.M.R (2001). Scientia Potestas Est – Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon to Michel Foucault. Neohelicon 28, 109–121 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011901104984

Gooday, G. (1990). Precision Measurement and the Genesis of Physics Teaching Laboratories in Victorian Britain. The British Journal for the History of Science, 23(1), 25-51. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4026801

Gottfried, J. (2005). History Repeating? Avoiding a Return to the Pre-Antibiotic Age (2005 Third Year Paper), Harvard University’s DASH repository.

Grundmann, R., Stehr, N. (2012). Introduction. In The Power of Scientific Knowledge: From Re- search to Public Policy (pp. 1-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139137003.002

Li, G. (2020). The magic power of TCM as COVID-19 therapeutics. From http://m.cwzg.cn/politics/202002/54745.html?page=full

Nitzan, Jonathan and Bichler, Shimshon. (2009). Capital as Power. A Study of Order and Creorder.

RIPE Series in Global Political Economy. Routledge.

Pielke, Jr, R. A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

Shapin, S. (1988). The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England. Isis, 79, 373-404.

Spencer, H. (1992). The man versus the state : With six essays on government, society, and freedom. Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Classics.

Wartenberg, T. (1990). The forms of power : From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.