Science Doesn't Kill People ... People Kill People

Copyright 1997, Yali Friedman
All Rights Reserved

Sept 2, 1997

Science is the organized systematic pursuit of knowledge. The purposes of science are to explain and manipulate the physical world.^[1] Scientific discoveries have greatly aided mankind and have allowed us to manipulate nature to our benefit. A common concern is uncertainty over where science will lead us next. Many scientific discoveries are "irreversible"; once you have them you cannot go back. Therefore it is important to investigate where science is "taking" us so that we can be prepared. At issue as well is the objectivity of science; if science is not objective, then perhaps it can lead us to bad crises or can be steered to good solutions. Because of its potency, like the analogy of a child with a gun, science must be balanced with social responsibility. Despite the fears about science, the overall goal of science is to produce a better world. Scientists feel that by improving our knowledge of nature they can benefit mankind.

Science aims to improve our understanding of the world around us through two modes: explaining and manipulating the world around us. These two functions are not necessarily linked; quantum mechanics can accurately predict experimental outcomes, but it defies explanation. Based upon the two abovementioned simple goals science would seem to be a relatively benign pastime, but the implications of science can be very potent. Defining the structure of an atom has given us the power to split the atom, producing helpful medical tools and destructive nuclear weapons. A better understanding of gravity has allowed us to put satellites into space allowing better global communication and navigation as well as clandestine spying operations. Because of the value of many scientific discoveries, it is no surprise that some of the most advanced research is funded by armies around the world.

Probably the most important scientific invention ever was agriculture. Agriculture allowed previously nomadic hunters to stay in one place and grow their own crops. This advancement allowed more leisure time, as less time was needed to find food, allowing the division of labour and creation of civilization. Since then, science has brought us sewer systems to reduce disease and allow even greater numbers of people to live together in densities never before possible. Not only are more people now able to live closer together, but their quality of life has increased as well. Life expectancies are rising and disease is becoming less common, seen especially in lower infant mortalities. While some animals have been observed using primitive agricultural techniques, none are as advanced as humans. It is science which separates humans from animals. Science has allowed us to manipulate our environment to allow evolution and fulfilment of our intellectual potentials.

Why does one study science? Einstein described three sorts of motives for scientific research: enjoyment of intellectual power and accomplishment, satisfaction of practical purposes, and a sort of religious following.[2] While some might state that Einstein's motives are out-dated, there still are visibly distinct motives present today. Molecular biologists, among others, have to choose between working in academia, a research park, industry, or even the military. These types of laboratories have very different characteristics and often have different goals as well. The existence of distinct goals in researching science implies that science cannot be truly objective. If science is to be unaffected by bias, it must be studied without bias, a possibility precluded by the studying of science for such ends as intellectual power and accomplishment. While it may vary by a scientist's personal goals and area of interest, some goals and areas of interest are inconsistent with objective science. Scientists looking for fame might be more disposed to research more controversial issues. Research into aerodynamics or high power energy sources inevitably finds applications in military vehicles and weapons. Because the people who perform research have different values, they will inevitably select research which agrees with their values, imparting biases on the scope and possible results of their research.

It may seem that science is merely the reduction of observations or hypothesized events into a theory which explains all the observed or hypothesized events; this definition gives the impression that science is "absolute" and not subject to bias. This is not the case; there is a selectivity about what is researched and the applications of scientific knowledge are subject to selection for different uses. Not all subjects can be researched by science; psychology wrestles with the inability to perform valuable experiments on humans due to ethical and procedural difficulties. Funding for scientific research is also selective Scientists must find sponsors for their research, and sponsors tend to fund projects which they are interested in. The applications of science may also be subjective. Nuclear science has contributed greatly to mankind by making possible a whole range of medical diagnostic and therapeutic procedures but has also allowed the invention of the nuclear bomb, one of the most feared weapons of war. Thus science itself is not objective and, even if it were, its applications are not. Furthermore, I hold that there cannot be such a thing as neutral science. Some people hold that science for knowledge sake can be without applications, and thus not have any affects on society. While we may not be able to apply all of our present knowledge currently, that knowledge still has implications, even if they are long-term implications. Even if we have knowledge with no current applications, the disparity of knowledge between people can be lead to war. I will not pursue this inductive argument any further, because even if it is not true for the whole of science, there is still much science which does have immediate applications and effects.

There are several solutions to the problem of objectivity. In North America, the major beer producers purportedly do not genetically engineer their yeast due to public fear of transgenic products. In many nations, genetic manipulations on "germline" cells have been banned. Many companies in the United States deny exports of their products to foreign companies producing weapons of mass-destruction. The motives may sometimes be more political than moral, but they may still achieve a moral end, limiting the negative productivity of the weapon-producing company. A third method to limit scientific research is war. One country may elect to attack or sabotage another country's scientific laboratories to prevent investigation or application of scientific knowledge. Thus, scientific research is limited in its scope by various internal and external factors.

It is scientific knowledge that allows us to question science at all. The invention of agriculture allowed for diversification of labour which allowed time to ponder philosophical questions. While science has the ability to do great damage, one must contemplate whether any amount of damage can be greater than the benefits. Without science, humans could have gone extinct, forgotten like the dodo. Science has allowed us to send our presence beyond our planet, beyond our solar system! Therefore, even if science were to cause the destruction of mankind as we know it, at least we would have been able to let others know of out presence, more than could be said of going extinct as mere nomadic hunters. The question of the value of science now seems almost pointless. How can we question the very science that brought us to the point that we can question it at all? Just because science brought us this far doesn't mean that we will prosper any further. We must examine science to see if we can steer it away from bad outcomes, and towards an even better future.

The next step might seem quite simple. We cannot stop researching science, for we still have many problems to solve, so the solution is to simply monitor and regulate what we research, so we will only produce good things. Unfortunately, this simple solution is more difficult in practice. Even if we could define what a "good" discovery is and contrast it with a stereotypical "bad" discovery, many discoveries are made by mistake. Teflon, now commonplace in most kitchens on pots and pans, was discovered by mistake. Penicillin, the first antibiotic to be discovered, was likewise discovered by a research looking for something else altogether.

Many scientific improvements are "pandora's boxes". Once a discovery is made, it cannot be undiscovered. The invention of nuclear weapons forever changed the nature of war and politics. Even inventions like television have had irreversible effects on our civilization. Coffee drinking has been linked to many diseases, but for many people it is necessary in order to be competitive and productive in their occupations. While a world without coffee could possibly be as productive as a world with coffee, the invention of coffee changed our world in such a way that coffee is now a virtual necessity. The ability to make coffee from coffee beans has many potential uses and society has chosen to make drinking coffee into a morning (and sometimes day-long) ritual. Albert Einstein said that if he knew that his work in nuclear physics would lead to the invention of the nuclear bomb, he never would have studied physics. This declaration reiterates the notion that science is irreversible. The dilemma in science is to be able to predict which developments will have the greatest potential for good, and the least potential for harm. Unfortunately, as Einstein discovered, this is not an easy estimation to make. At fault for this uncertainty are the people who direct science - not the scientists, but society.

With the knowledge that "innocent" scientific findings such as the structure of an atom can be used for good and bad purposes, scientific advancements must be balanced with social adaptations. Throughout time, the most powerful civilizations have been those with the greatest technology. From the ancient Egyptians with their pyramids to the Romans and their roads and plumbing to the United States with its large army and arsenal of nuclear weapons, this theme remains. Sir Peter Medawar[3] describes two different views of the goals of science. Scientific meliorism implies that science cannot make the world perfect, but can do a lot to make it better. Messianism is the feeling that science can in fact make the world "perfect", like a Utopia. The reason why scientific messianism is not a reasonable expectation is because science cannot change many social phenomena. Science cannot stop wars, science cannot prevent crime. Science can only provide the potential for a better world, and social changes are necessary to utilize that potential. Thus one may ask if nuclear weapons are a result of science, or a result of social problems. The key to the proper use of science is to ensure that scientific growth is commensurate with social capacities.

Conclusion

Science, in its purest form, is a positive thing. The problems with science are the ways in which it and its discoveries are exploited by unprepared societies. It is therefore the responsibility of society as a whole to continually assess science to ensure that no scientific "arms races" develop, and that society is adequately prepared for whatever developments science is able to provide.

Note added in proof:

1. "A Reasonable Skepticism", from R.C. Lewontin, Biology as Ideology. Anansi Press, Concord, Ontario, 1991.
2. "Principles of Research", from Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions. Crown, New York, 1954.
3. "Scientific Meliorism Versus Scientific Messianism" from P.B. Medawar, Advice to a Young Scientist. Harper and Row, New York 1979.

Yali's Eclectic Collection of Projects