-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 09:22:17 -0600
From: Science-Week <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ScienceWeek BULLETIN October 4, 1999
From:
SW BULLETIN - October 4, 1999
---------------------------------------------
This Week's Report:
ON THE QUESTION OF THE DANGERS OF SCIENCE
Lewis Wolpert (University College London, UK), in a "commentary"
article, considers the classic question whether science is
dangerous, the author making the following points:
1) The idea that knowledge is dangerous is deeply embedded
in our culture. Indeed, Western literature is filled with images
of scientists meddling with nature with disastrous results.
Scientists are portrayed as a soulless group, unconcerned with
ethical issues.
2) The social obligations that scientists have, as distinct
from those responsibilities they share with all citizens, come
from scientists having access to specialized knowledge of how the
world works, knowledge that is not easily accessible to others.
The obligation of scientists is to make public any social
implications of their work and its technological applications,
and to give some assessment of the reliability of their work. In
most areas of science, it matters little whether a particular
theory is right or wrong, but in some areas, such as human and
plant genetics, it matters a great deal.
3) The most clear case of immorality in scientific research
was the eugenics movement. The scientific assumptions behind this
movement were crucial: that most human attributes (desirable and
undesirable) are inherited. The scientists concerned completely
failed to give an assessment of the reliability of their ideas or
sufficiently to consider the implications of their ideas. On the
contrary, and even more blameworthy, their conclusions seem to
have been driven by what they saw as desirable social
implications. In contrast, the Allied scientists who built the
atomic bomb behaved morally, and fulfilled their social
obligations by informing their governments about the implications
of atomic theory. The decision to build the bomb was taken by
politicians, not scientists.
4) The very term "genetic engineering" conjures up the image
of Frankenstein and his monster. The media are aware of this and
often report what can be regarded as genetic pornography --
reports dressed up to titillate and frighten. Newspapers print
sensational and unjustifiable headlines such as the "Frankenstein
foods" idiocy surrounding genetically modified organisms in the
UK.
5) Bioethics is a growth industry that purports to address
questions concerning the dangers to society posed by biological
science. But one should regard this field with caution, as
bioethicists have a vested interest in finding difficulties.
6) Are there areas of research that are so socially
sensitive that they should be avoided, even proscribed? Once one
begins to censor the acquisition of objective knowledge, one is
on the most slippery edge of all. Scientists cannot easily
predict the social and technological implications of research, as
is demonstrated by numerous examples in the history of science
and technology.
7) The author concludes: "National and international
councils that can assess the ethical issues relating to the
applications of science and promote public debate are no doubt
valuable. But one wonders what such a committee would have said
if the public had been offered a convenient form of transport,
but at the cost, in the United Kingdom alone, of more than 3000
lives per year, a quarter of a million injured and the untold
damage of pollution. Where are the car-ethicists?"
-----------
Lewis Wolpert: Is science dangerous?
(Nature 25 Mar 99 398:281)
Contact info: Lewis Wolpert [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Copyright
Copyright (c) 1999 ScienceWeek
All Rights Reserved
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
