Scribd
Upload
64 views

STS

The document discusses the article "Is Science Dangerous?" by Sir Joseph Rotblat. The article argues that science itself is value-free, but technology can generate ethical issues when scientific knowledge is applied. While scientists have a duty to support democratic values, they have limited control over how science is used. Some areas like eugenics, cloning and genetic engineering raise ethical concerns due to potential harms. The document also questions how the public can ensure they receive accurate information rather than propaganda, and how the media can better inform people on social issues related to science. In conclusion, the author agrees with Rotblat that science itself is not harmful, but dangers can arise from its application, so ethical conduct and social benefits should guide

Uploaded by

Marc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views

STS

The document discusses the article "Is Science Dangerous?" by Sir Joseph Rotblat. The article argues that science itself is value-free, but technology can generate ethical issues when scientific knowledge is applied. While scientists have a duty to support democratic values, they have limited control over how science is used. Some areas like eugenics, cloning and genetic engineering raise ethical concerns due to potential harms. The document also questions how the public can ensure they receive accurate information rather than propaganda, and how the media can better inform people on social issues related to science. In conclusion, the author agrees with Rotblat that science itself is not harmful, but dangers can arise from its application, so ethical conduct and social benefits should guide

Uploaded by

Marc
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

NAME: MARC JESSE A.

PELAGIO DATE: 03/23/2023


COURSE & SECTION: BS ChE 1A SCORE:
SCIENCE: FIELD OF VERITY OR PREVARICATION?
Science has demonstrated to be an incredibly effective method of
comprehending our world. There is no denying that science has significantly increased
our understanding of topics like the age and vastness of the cosmos, the evolution of
life on Earth, and how our bodies function. Therefore, it provides us confidence and
certainty about the reality. Does these suffice to dispute the idea that science bear
dread and suspicion?
“The Medawar Lecture 1998: Is Science Dangerous?” tackles different aspects
such as social responsibility, eugenics, reproduction: cloning, genes and stem cells, and
politics which can prove if science is really perilous. As I’ve read the article multiple
times, I learned that Science creates theories about how the world functions, whereas
technology creates useful products from its theories. It also argues that it is technology
that generates ethical issues because reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has
no moral or ethical value. Due to these ethical issues, Sir Joseph Rotblat strongly
opposed to the idea that science is objective, and scientists are not to be held
responsible for its improper application. Besides, scientists have social obligations that
are distinct from those of all citizens, such as supporting a democratic society and
taking care of the rights of others. They have limited power in applying science, raising
ethical issues for everyone involved. Moreover, studies have shown that there is
mistrust in scientists, especially those working for the government and industry. This
mistrust is likely related to BSE and GM foods, and science should be neutral and
value-free due to the potential for purpose perversion when combined with political or
social objectives.
Despite the knowledge I’ve learned through Wolpert's article, there were still
some obvious gaps I identified. For instance, eugenics is an unethical and immoral
practice that can have both positive and negative effects on people and society. It is
concerning how much support it gains even when its undesirable effects outweigh its
benefits. Also, genetic engineering and cloning poses ethical issues, as genes control
the development of our bodies and one mistake can cause them to malfunction. A
thorough study should be done and adequate information and evidences provided to the
public to be critically evaluated. In the same manner, politics intervenes in science and
contributes to abuse of power and that should be avoided and questioned.
On the other hand, if I had the opportunity to ask the questions to better
comprehend and clarify chaotic ideas, I would like to ask the following: 1) The article
states that no knowledge or information is impervious to abuse, but how can the public
be sure that the information being sent is accurate and not just a fabrication for political
gain? 2) What can be done to ensure that the public is informed and protected from
false information and disinformation? 3) Since the media is a key source of information
and contributor to misunderstanding science, what steps do they need to do in making
the people be more attentive to social issues?
On a final note, Wolpert asserts that science is not intrinsically harmful; rather,
danger arises from the way it is applied and employed. Furthermore, he places a strong
emphasis on the value of ethical scientific conduct and making sure that scientific
discovery is applied in ways that are advantageous to society.
References:
Wolpert L. (2005). The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous?. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 360(1458),
1253–1258. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1659

You might also like