Demonizing Test Tubes: A War Against Science? (Part 1)
A few weeks ago on Creative Think, creative-thinking expert Roger von Orech posed an interesting question: “What do you think will be demonized in the next two years?”
My answer actually scared me: Science.
It’s hard to imagine at first… how could a logical method of investigation (and the body of knowledge produced through that method) be viewed as evil and diabolic? It seems especially odd in the US, where for so many years, scientific technology and education has been the driving force of our success.
The whole concept seems absurd on it’s face - but under the surface, much of the public’s perspective on science is are shifting from positive to negative. Why?
Science IS Scary Stuff, Sometimes.
New discoveries often reveal new threats and new fears (holes in the ozone and magnetic pole shifts, for example)
Science has fueled overly-successful technologies that have created new dangers - intensifying climate change, antibiotic resistant diseases, allowing for bio-weapons and other frightening military and guerilla threats.
The rapidly changing terrain of accepted theory means that even experts have trouble navigating the latest news - to lay people, the rapid changes make science seem unreliable and unstable.
And the quick changes are disorienting, too, creating generational gaps and challenges to the human brain and culture of the like we’ve never really seen before. Unfamiliar, unpredictable unknowns are frightening, however promising they may be.
The complexity of cutting edge science doesn’t help - some of the conclusions seem counter intuitive, and even those with the intellectual capacity to understand don’t have the education needed to follow the twists and turns of multiple complex theories in multiple disciplines. It can reinforce the illusion that the brightest of scientists are out of touch with the real world, prone to overlooking simple answers that seem obvious to others.
It’s an illusion, but a frightening and persistent illusion.
New Ethical Challenges
That same exciting, frightening pace of advancement create moral dilemmas that were unimaginable even a few years ago.
- The possibilities for cures in bio-medical research collide head on with ethical concerns about cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell research, organ transplants, quality vs quantity of life, as well as when life begins, ends, and just who makes that call.
- Alternative energy research is booming, but the environmental impact of each method raises new concerns about unpredicted and perhaps unpredictable effects.
- Bio-engineering of crops could feed millions more people while using less resources, or it could set off a chain reaction, upsetting the ecological balance. The public has serious questions about the healthiness of cloned, bio-engineered and radiated food - and the ethics about some of the research itself, from laboratory testing with animals to embryonic stem cells
- Research on climate change is another hot bed of conflict - because even as science struggles to identify the changes, predict the future, and hopefully improve it, we’re also aware that it may well be science (and the technology that it led to) that contributed to the changes.
- Advances in our knowledge of the brain raise philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness, faith, and ecstatic religious experience. Debate about the nature of “the soul” and how it is or isn’t compatible with
modern science can threaten even the most stable of religious convictions.
- Discoveries about the intelligence and self-awareness of animals challenge our understandings about ourselves as a unique and superior species, as well as our responsibilities towards other species.
Faced with such rapid changes, many of us are faced with the urge to yell “STOP, slow down the science while we figure this out!”
But the potential benefits, competitiveness, need, the drive for knowledge (and yes, potential profits) keep the research pushing forward.
The conflict can erupt in violence - as in the case of animal rights activists, some of whom actively consider themselves in a war, and have gone so far as to firebomb cars and homes of research scientists.
It still seems a stretch to imagine that kind of behavior from enough people on enough fronts to seriously threaten scientific progress in the US, but the potential *is* there, with the most potentially polarizing element being the Creation/Evolution education debate.
That tricky-bit-of-topic is up next, in Part Two.
What’s this got to do with MindTweaks, you ask? Lots! Neuroscience is one of the most rapidly advancing and beneficial areas of scientific discovery. It’s also challenging to our concepts of self, consciousness, and “the soul”. Besides, understanding the many view points involved challenges the mind in new directions and develops new neural pathways. Yay for neuro-plasticity.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Science is a wonderful thing, but it is not the problem.
The problem today is that the scientific breakthroughs/technologies are increasingly heading into the wrong hands. Scientific ideas - like anything else in this world - have financial value, which means the super rich and powerful have the ability to purchase an idea, patent it, and use it to increase their power.
And in an increasingly fragile world where the evil of inequality is gaining momentum, those who possess power and have most to lose and have the most to fear, will use whatever means possible to ensure they keep the new technologies that will keep them in power.
This is not to say that the rich and powerful are all bad, but it does frighten me that those in power control the very worst that science has produced - warships, missiles, bombs, nuclear weapons, CCTV, chemical pollutants, cameras, DNA cecking, anti-depressants, intrusive ID cards and databases, chemical, weapons.
If you wonder why there could be a war on science, perhaps that war is being fought by people who are becoming increasingly aware that those in power are using the power of science to achieve a greater means of control.
One example is the use of the frightening biometric ID card and database which the power holders in the US and Europe are doing their utmost to push through. Everybody I’ve spoken to is terrified of boimetric ID cards. The science behind the ID card is not the problem. The problem people have is that they feel threatened by this technology. The ID card is a threat to their liberty.
You say:
‘It seems especially odd in the US, where for so many years, scientific technology and education has been the driving force of our success.’
What success? The successfil creation of deadlier weapons, the successful process of polluting the earth, the successful creation of antibiotics that have spawned a new generation of resistant bacteria, the successful creation of processed foods that have created an obesity and ADHT epedimic, the successful creation of a surveillance society that our children could inherit?
Science is not the problem, irresponsible people in power are. If there’s one certainty, those in power would not be in their positions without science.
People are at last beginning to become aware of this, and are frightened. This is why a ‘War on Science’ might be being waged.
Picture if you will Michael Palin dressed in his Spanish Inquisitor costume for the sketch in Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Each time he rushes in he adds a new weapon to the list.
This time simply add science to a growing list of demonized subjects. Yawn.
Neextt…..?
Science will prevail. It has ever since an apeman picked up a bone and crashed it onto the ground in a fit of pique thus instant-inventing man’s first tool.
As for ‘climate change’, I am still waiting for the defining debate between the bad science barbarian lobbyists and the even-keeled white labcoated blokes who maintain nature is simply going through one of its many phases. And in terms of the latter, I am this morning very tempted to agree that climate change is jibberjabber created by the Green Industialist cartel. Today in UK it is supposed to be summer. But over the past weeks, sunshine has been so shy to reveal itself and heat the land and so is a memory I am forced to cling to.
Greenhouse effect? What is that supposed to be? I am seriously contemplating turning on the central heating at home!!
@Robert I’m so sorry to have bored such an esteemed member of the Spanish Inquisition!
More seriously, I have no doubt that science will win out in the end… but that doesn’t mean that we won’t see some serious challenges raised in the mean time, a thought that is troubling at a point in a time when advances seem so important both on a global and national scale. (Speaking as an American here; I’ll let you speak for the UK!)
I’m going to somehow resist debating the climate change or green house effect discussion… because I want to stay focused on the overall point I’m trying to make. Bear with me while I work through it, please?
@Peter I really wanted to avoid debating the fine points you raised, too… but I don’t think its reasonable to list antidepressants alongside chemical weapons as “the worst science has produced”. Yes, I do think the US is indisputably successful as a nation; that doesn’t mean that our success always leads us in the most sustainable or ethical directions. And I also think that science benefits the poor of the world as much and perhaps more than it benefits the rich and powerful, especially in areas of disease prevention, general health care, food production and transportation, etc.
But those things aside, I think your comment fits in nicely to the primary point I’m making about the current levels of fear, anger and distrust when it comes to scientific advancements and the impact of the resulting technology.
[...] (starting with mine) ← Demonizing Test Tubes: A War… [...]
Tori,
We can certainly ENGAGE on the climate change issue sometime in the future!
Meanwhile I am off to find a stockist of good longlasting batteries. I endure an inordinate number of electricity cuts. The village I live in is still trying to catch up to Mr Volt & Mr Watt’s timezone. Believe it or not, I have a water out front of house. And the hamsters do not like this chore (runing in the wheel that lowers and raises the bucket), each time I want to boil the kettle for a pot of tea or to have a shower….!! It’s a bit chilly in winter.
Tori
You’re right, perhaps anti-depressants shouldn’t be catageorized along with chemical weapons, for there are people with genuine needs for these types of medications.
But too many people today are taking anti-depressants because they simple don’t want to feel unhappy, when all they need to do is accept that it’s perfectly normal to feel down sometimes, and all they need to do is change their life - a career or relationship or location change, for example.
What’s happening is we are creating a stressful society, and we look to science (anti-depressants) for the cure, when we should be questioning society itself. (Maybe the collective ego - we’re too smart to be wrong - comes into this).
And so, anti depressants (science) receives bad publicity, and another argument against science (my previous comment, for example) ensues.
Science is not the problem. We, as a species, can’t handle science. Scientific breakthroughs, along with the hectic pace of life, are moving so quick, society can’t keep pace. Humans are constantly inundated with new technology that they use without understanding (how many people do you know that bother to read all the instructions for every gadget they own?), and ignorance as you know is derived from fear - in this case, fear of science.
So we could say that science, as well as advancing, is contributing to the current demise of society (I’m sorry, but humanity is currently suffering from a collective sickness), and at the same time is being used as a cure (‘take these pills and you’ll feel fine.’ ‘thanks doctor!’), when we should be taking a hard look at what we’re doing wrong in the first place.
Something tells me our egos won’t allow us to accept we’ve created too many mistakes. We really are in a mess!
Thanks for clarifying that, Peter … one of my other concerns in all of this is the anti-medical/pharmaceutical crowd. My answer to them is “Yes, some drugs are over prescribed, yes, that causes unanticipated problems. Yes, some treatments have unanticipated side effects. But the over all benefits of antibiotics, vaccines, antidepressants, antipsychotics and the like have been astounding. The problems need to be continually addressed, but demonizing the drugstore isn’t the answer” — oops, forgive the mini-rant. I suppose that should be in my next post, huh?
And I agree that much of the issue is that our scientific knowledge and technology is evolving faster than our brains and cultures can handle. I don’t have a solution for that, though - The genie is out of Pandora’s box, and we’ll just have to cope ‘best we can : ) Luckily, our brains ARE remarkably adaptive, and I think we’ll manage.
You wrote, “much of the public’s perspective on science is are shifting from positive to negative. Why?” The falsifying of global warming data to prove global warming as a matter of science was not a good thing. How can anybody trust science anymore. Actually, there is nothing wrong with science per se, it is the scientists we need to be wary of.
Sheena