speed said:
I disagree with you on the big picture aims of Science. As you should know, science has brought us the nuclear bomb, chemical weapons and manufactured viruses, potent narcotics, cancer causing materials, environmentally dangerous and destructive chemicals, and well the list goes on and on. This is a natural externality of science. Many times such discoveries were made on accident. Other times they were not. But still, it is obvious from our last fifty years of scientific explosion, that science will not be stopped regardless of its destructive and or morally challenged breakthroughs, until after there is a big problem. This is the big point: the after point. And thats what's so scary about our dependence on science. We have followed the Scientists and allowed them unlimited breakthroughs; and guess what, all of these chemicals are destroying the earth, and could destroy mankind in minutes.
What you are talking about has infinitely more to do with unregulated capitalism and unbridled military than any fault to science. The problem lies not with science for coming up with something, but rather with the people who use it inappropriately. In trying to create something of medicine that could save millions, that could also be used to do something awful, doesnt mean it should never be studied. You claim science brought us all this stuff, I disagree, I claim this stuff came about because of corporatism and capitalism (in the case of cancer causing agents like dioxins, PCBs, atrazine, etc), and an almost maniacal view of the world through militarism (chemical weapons and the nuclear bomb). I dont think science has ever made something solely for the purpose of destruction. As I said, even nuclear power can be useful (though as an environmentalist, I think its deplorable). As I said, would you really want to go back to a time when polio was rampant and you could die from strep throat? This question is about medicine, not the nuclear bomb. Its about saving peoples lives. There are black market things going on at this very moment that are horrific and disturbing, like child sex slaves, but no one cares about that. Its more important to prevent medicine from being able to save lives because of what could become of the technology.
I dont think scientists are as detached from the ethical ideas involved as people would like to think. I can say for certain after studying race and gender from a biological standpoint that ALL the research scientists have done are completely engrossed by their politics and morals. So conservatively minded people will say that race is genetically meaningful (in the face of tons of evidence that it isnt) and that gender is biologically meaningful (again, despite equal amounts of evidence both for and against it in the data with almost every aspect). Meanwhile, those scientists that are more liberally minded, are more likely to take a view that race is meaningless (which is strongly supported by the data) and gender is social. My point is, that when it comes to topics that have emotional issues attached to them, scientists are not beacons of unbiased pursuers of truth. They are just people, and they have their own biases and beliefs. So for me, it goes back to the fact that tons of scientific advances can be used negatively, but I think in almost every instance, the good has far outweighed any bad. Scientists arent doing research, blind to the consequences. Its companies like Monsanto, and the fear of the government to regulate industry that is causing problems. Its the holy worship of the dollar that has caused atrocities, not scientists having free reign without any thought of future consequences.
If I may go off on another tangent, its interesting that you bring up cancer causing agents. They are perfect for making my point. We created DDT, and it worked wonders as a pesticide. Prevented malaria by the millions, hell they used to dust streets with DDT and kids would play in it. Now we know that DDT is a cancer causing agent, and its been deemed illegal. However, something like atrazine (an herbicide often used by farmers to prevent weeds from growing in fields) is just as bad as DDT, yet the government wont regulate it. Same with Dioxin, which never existed on earth, until we started burning plastics like polyethylene and dioxin was one of the biproducts. Is the government regulating dioxin, or the burning of polymer plastics? Nope. Mostly due to the fact that big industry has lobbyists all over DC. I think this could almost become its own stem topic, but really, needless to say, once science discovers something has these horrific affects, they call for the abolishment of it, and research into a new mechanism. You can see this in the number of scientists now trying to prove just how awful endocrine disrupters and cancer causing agents are, and are trying to convince the government to regulate it, now that big business has a hold of it.
Also, Id like to point out that its impossible for scientists to prove something is safe. Safety is not something that can be tested, only harm. Even if every single possible scenario that we can test, is tested, there could still be unforseeable problems. No chemical is ever 100% safe. So the answer is to never make scientific breakthroughs?
God damn, that is alot longer than I meant it to be, sorry about that
