The Human Right to Science and the Authoritarian Impulse: A GNPHR Follow-up
Neal S. Rubin, PhD, ABPP
In April of 2020, in the height of the COVID pandemic, I published a piece with the GNPHR (https://humanrightspsychology.org/commentary-human-rights-challenges/) in which I expressed concern for the future of human rights. My concern at the time was that there were compelling contemporary reasons for us as individuals to compromise our rights in the service of the greater good. The human community was vulnerable all over the world. Emergency rooms were overloaded; people were dying of COVID in unthinkable numbers. Steps were being taken to bypass usual protocols of conduct resulting in violations of privacy rights and standards of medical ethics. Contact tracing was instituted to track infections; medical research was accelerated to create the new mRNA vaccines in the hopes of saving humanity. Desperate and frightened, we were willing to allow for democratic principles to be compromised and we accepted governmental controls to save our lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.
In the column I asked what the long-term impact would be from our experience of finding ourselves in the “fog of war” with this virulent virus. As a consequence, for example, would citizens and societies become appropriately vigilant about restoring and protecting our rights or would history record that we had succumbed to the exercise of more extensive governmental authority resulting in a continuing diminution of our human rights?
Leading into the COVID era and now beyond, renewed attention has been devoted to the development of “the human right to science.” According to scholars and human rights activists, this previously underappreciated right referred to specifically in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and more generally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (for example, Article 25) was in need of additional attention and clarification. The COVID pandemic which led to scientific discovery and questions regarding who might benefit from such innovation may have contributed to the momentum to articulate a more in-depth understanding of the human right to science. Thoughtful discussion that followed explored the question of how do scientific rights relate to other cultural rights? The ICESCR in Article 15 defines the right of everyone “To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its benefits.” Further, it supports the material rights of scientific production, and that “States Parties…respect the freedoms indispensable for scientific research and creative activity.”
It has been over 75 years since the establishment of the United Nations (U.N.) a global institution created to promote international cooperation and the advancement of human rights worldwide. This global body consists of nations with diverse forms of government which to greater or lesser degrees honor the U.N.’s principles as exemplified in the U.N. Charter and the UDHR. Treaty bodies have been established to monitor the compliance of Member States with their commitments to honoring and promoting human rights. Differing forms of their governments adhere to these principles more or less. For example, historians and political scientists have observed the dynamic tension between autocracies and democracies. Shifts in this tension has been recorded both within and across societies along with shifting access to human rights. National elections today reflect this observation with some societies embracing a movement toward advancing freedoms while others choose more autocratic leadership limiting those same freedoms.
The effort to unite the world community at the U.N. followed World War II in which dominant powers violated the sovereignty of nations, in order to extend their spheres of influence. As the U.N.’s Office of Peacekeeping has observed, for a time following the establishment of the U.N.’s efforts at peacemaking and peacekeeping, fewer wars between nations were recorded as civil wars, asymmetrical wars and terrorism dominated the world stage. However, most recently, dominant world powers invading or threatening to invade or take control of sovereign nations has raised alarms. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s threats against Taiwan and challenges to the integrity of Canada and Panama by the United States are prominent recent examples.
The authoritarian impulse is obvious in these developments. Among autocracies, human rights are denigrated as they may be viewed as impediments to the acquisition and stability of political power. At such times the human compact, across religions and cultures, to honor the human dignity of all persons and peoples becomes devalued. The International Bill of Rights has at its core the proposition that human rights are inalienable and indivisible. The compromise of any one right, compromises all our rights. Today, however, the autocratic impulse attacking scientific advancement and the corollary promotion of misinformation about human health is seen across repressive societies, most recently in the United States. Governmental interference with the advancement of science therefore violates a fundamental human right.
Of course, the damage to society goes beyond compromising rights as scientific discovery may also promote economic development and other components of societal and human well-being. One only needs to observe the inter-connectedness of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to see how promoting one goal advances another to then understand the inter-relatedness of our diverse human rights. Similarly, scientific and artistic creations are also highly related. Article 15 of the ICESCR also states that we have a right “To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.” Citizens have the right to benefit from the work of those who create cultural and scientific products and reciprocally, those who research and publish new findings have the right to benefit from their endeavors as well.
Oversimplifying historical and political trends risks reductionism. Indeed, there is a complexity of factors driving human history and the impacts of a global health crisis are only a component of such intracacy. As with the 1918 influenza epidemic during World War I in the 20th century, perhaps the outcomes of the COVID pandemic will be better understood in the future via the work of historians and political scientists. What we have lost and what we have gained in our century will be learned.
Will the 21st century attacks by autocrats on the usefulness and integrity of science undermine technological advancements that are consistent with the moral and ethical standards of civilization? Will the aspirations of the human right to science be realized or failed? And will the door remain open to compromises of our human rights as the legacy of the fog of war with a virulent virus?
June 23, 2025