The Dark Side of Science

The technology spawned by science grows ever more powerful, and does so at an ever-faster rate. Where is it taking us?

Science has bestowed enormous benefits on mankind. But it has a dark side as well. It gives us miracle medicines, but also, germ warfare. It bestows upon us nuclear power, and nuclear bombs. Its power can be used to benefit the environment or to destroy it.

But there is another aspect of science, one that has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with shaping our worldview. In doing so, it influences how we structure our society, our laws, and our moral codes.

What is most remarkable about science is not its gadgetry, but rather, what it tells us about ourselves, who we are, what is our purpose and destiny. Do we have inherent value? Or are we just another species of animal?

In other words, there is a powerful philosophy that underpins science. It affects us all.

Science is based on the premise that the universe has rules, unbreakable laws that do not depend on our opinion, but which are revealed to us by observation and reason. As far as we can tell, the universe is orderly; it has structure and hierarchy. Is that all just meaningless coincidence?

Until recent times, nature was correctly seen to be the work of a divine designer whose purpose, plan and meaning are revealed to us in the wonders of Creation. We have a special place in that creation; we are its stewards, its gardeners. We have life, we have consciousness -- and we possess free will. Therefore, we are accountable for our deeds.

As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
- Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:

we have consciousness -- and we possess free will. Therefore, we are accountable for our deeds.

This is exactly why I have not published my own research. Knowledge and consciousness is more powerful than the atomic bomb. I am responsible for those who misuse it if I release it to the public.

A similar story is that of retired organic chemist John W Huffman, a remarkable scientist whose brain studies to combat drug addiction led to his developing formulas for synthetic THC which in turn resulted in many deaths from overdose and an increase in the worldwide drug abuse. I feel for him as he is a man dedicated to using science to help people and it was used instead to harm many.

Einstein was the same way with his science, while writing the letter to FDR that resulted in the Manhattan Project, Einstein himself was not allowed on the project and his unopened letter to FDR urging him to restrict use of the atomic bomb was unopened when FDR died.

“You know what's wrong with scientific power?" Malcolm said.
“It’s a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails."
Hammond said, "What is he talking about?”
Harding made a sign, indicating delirium. Malcolm cocked his eye.
“I will tell you what I am talking about," he said.
"Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power.
There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years.
Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru.
Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort.
You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you.
And once you have attained it, it’s your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you.
It is literally the result of your discipline.
Now what is interesting about this process is that,
by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands,
he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely.
So that kind of power has a built-in control.
The discipline of getting the you so that you won't abuse it.
But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline.
You read what others have done, and you take the next step.
You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast.
There is no discipline lasting many decades.
There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored.
There is no humility before nature.
There is only a get-rich-quick, make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy.
Cheat, lie, falsify--it doesn't matter. Not to you, or to your colleagues.
No one will criticize you. No one has any standards.
They all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast.”
“And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly.
You don't even-know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it; patented it, and sold it.”
“And the buyer will have even less discipline than you. The buyer simply purchases the power, like any commodity.
The buyer doesn’t even conceive that any discipline might be necessary.”
Hammond said, "Do you know what he is talking about?"
Ellie nodded.
“I haven't a clue”; Hammond said.
“I’ll make it simple.” Malcolm said.
"A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands. He does not lose his temper and kill his wife.
The person who kills is the person who has no discipline no restraint,
and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special.”
“And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits.
And that is why you think that to build a place like this is simple."
"It was simple," Hammond insisted.
'Then why did it go wrong?"

--from Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. New York: Ballantine Books, 1990, pp.305-307.

Crichton is brilliant and has so much to his credit, but I don’t think he believed this dialog. To be able to use the results of research by those “giants” of the past takes a very large amount of work, as anyone who has tried to master Einstein’s equations or quantum theory can attest.

Likewise, there are developments in medicine that cannot be understood until many years of medical school have been undertake successfully.

Thus, there is a apprenticeship period and discipline in the sciences that is equally time consuming and difficult before anyone can make a contribution to the science and bring it a step farther. Crichton himself earned a degree in medicine before he became a successful author. Nothing came easily to him either.

I agree. Crichton was brilliant, but I do think he believed that dialog.

In fact, I suspect that dialog expresses a key component of who he was, as you explained in the last part of your reply to me.

To me, what he expressed is part of the difference between knowledge and wisdom, between the stuff you learn from books and school and what you learn in life applying what you learned from books and school.

Without wisdom’s guidance, human nature can easily fall victim to the folly of “knowledge”, as our being made to bow low to the great Glowing Bull Warming god currently shows.

These days, when we have instant access to the world’s accumulated knowledge at our finger tips, we seem to like Jeopardy winning facts and “here, hold my beer and watch this...” way more than the peer-reviewed, scientific method stuff popular post-war, mid-last century.

No worries. All bubbles deflate sooner or later, sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly, and this one will too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.