ANSELM ELDERGILL draws attention to a legal case on Tuesday in which a human rights group is challenging the government’s decision to allow the sale of weapons used against Palestinians

SCIENCE does not intrinsically promote technological advancement. It concerns the study and understanding of the natural world and its constituent parts.
However, when combined with technological enthusiasm, the synthesis is responsible for radically changing society. We live in an age of scientific funding that began at the start of the 20th century.
To understand this age, we can look to the end of the industrial revolution which produced the work of Karl Marx. As discussed in an excellent answer by the Marx Memorial Library in April, Marxism’s inception as a “scientific socialism” was meant to indicate a foundation on the objective material world beyond the utopian imaginings of other socialists.

A maverick’s self-inflicted snake bites could unlock breakthrough treatments – but they also reveal deeper tensions between noble scientific curiosity and cold corporate callousness, write ROX MIDDLETON, LIAM SHAW and MIRIAM GAUNTLETT
Science has always been mixed up with money and power, but as a decorative facade for megayachts, it risks leaving reality behind altogether, write ROX MIDDLETON, LIAM SHAW and MIRIAM GAUNTLETT

