|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
HARDBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 28
ESSAY ~ ~
Valence and
Scientists from the
Publics Perspective
``The eras of man is knowledge, but there is one thing he can at kr~ow. He
can't know whether knowledge will save him or kill him. He will be
killed, all right' but he carrot know whether he is killed because of the
krlowlledge which he has got or because of the know1ledge which he hasn't
got arid which if he had it, would save him.7'
Robert Penn Warren
All the King7s Men
When scientists confront the dilemma posed by Robert Penn Warren, they
tend to respond optimistically, says Maxine Singer, president of the Carnegie
Institution in Washington, D.C. "We believe that the acquisition of new
knowledge is both wondrous and good. We also believe that the quest for
better comprehension is a fundamental human trait, one which sets Homo
sapiens apart from other living species. We reinforce this belief by a conviction
that original research is a creative endeavor, linked to artistic and literary
creativity in method and talent. And we believe that these last considerations
say that science is a thoroughly human enterprise, that through science we
are expressing human as well as humane values."
But the public's perception of science can be ambivalent and often pes-
simistic, Singer acknowledges. "For the most part, nonscientists find the
continuing quest for knowledge somewhat frightening," she says. To some
extent, this fear extends even to scientists. "Often at Washington cocktail
parties, where everyone asks strangers, 'What do you do?' I find that the
answer 'molecular biologist' is likely to drive the questioner to the far end of
the room." The same attitude surfaces in the popular media. In television
shows and best-selling books, scientists are often depicted as "frightening'
usually unsympathetic, almost inhuman."
Despite these widespread impressions, Singer does not believe that the
public's view of science is totally negative. Public attitudes are too numerous,
diverse, and at times contradictory to characterize one-sidedly. People are
eager to make use of the fruits of scientific research, and many avidly follow
28
OCR for page 29
reports of scientific developments. Biologists and other scientists have also
devoted considerable time in recent years to explaining their work to the
public. Partly as a result, Singer notes, over 50 percent of all Americans say
that they know what DNA is.
But the tension between the acquisition of new knowledge and the fear of
that knowledge remains widespread in society. It is a troubling tension to
· · - - 1 1
1 , v
scientists, Linger believes, because scientists in the United States rely on the
public for support. On a purely financial level, the majority of scientific
research is paid for with public funds. And more broadly, in a democracy,
scientific work on controversial subjects can be slowed or halted by public
opposition, even if engendered by unwarranted fears.
The Uses of Knowledge
Scientists are well aware of the ambivalence with which the public views
their work. One sign of this awareness is the social contract through which
scientists solicit funds for research. While scientists pursue knowleclge, the
public can gain from that knowledge new treatments for disease, for in-
stance, or agricultural improvements. Current plans to map and sequence the
human genome are a good example. One set of rationales for such a project
speak of an increased understanding of disease, development of new thera-
peutic agents, and heightened international competitiveness. But any such
benefits will be built on a new base of knowledge about the structure and
functioning of DNA.
Where is nothing wrong with these honest arguments" about the practical
benefits of science, Singer says. Scientists want to make the world a better
place; for some, that may be their primary motivation. But the fundamental
purpose of science is to learn more about the world.
The public's ambivalence toward science also emerges in other ways. For
instance, new scientific discoveries and their implications are extensively
covered by the media. Indeed, we often read of new discoveries first in the
press and only later in journals," Singer points out. But the press also devotes
considerable time to scientific controversies that most scientists consider
relatively minor or beside the point. Transgressions of scientific standards,
whether substantial or insignificant, become front-page news. The views of a
small minority may be presented as a counterpoint to widely held scientific
outlooks, giving the minority viewpoints a credence that they do not deserve.
The public's apprehension over new knowledge can be particularly acute
in biology. Biology seeks to describe the fundamental nature of human beings,
offering a self-knowledge that is not always reassuring. The increasing ability
of biologists to manipulate biological systems also is heightening the impact
of biology on the modern world.
THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVE 29
OCR for page 30
Science and Myth
Much of the public's unease over scientific advances arises because of the
way in which science can conflict with long-standing premises, explanations,
and authorities, Singer contends. In many cases, scientific explanations of
natural phenomena are becoming available where mythologic explanations
have traditionally held sway. These conflicting viewpoints influence public
debate in a number of ways.
An obvious example is the continuing debate over the teaching of evolution.
Modern genetics fully supports the conclusions of evolutionary biologists that
human beings evolved from earlier forms of life. Nevertheless, surveys show
that over half of all Americans think that biblical creation myths should be
taught in science curricula in American schools, even though mainstream
religious leaders do not support this view. `'Thus it is not only religious
fundamentalists who prohibit us from ending this debate," Singer maintains.
Another example comes from the prospect of human gene therapy. In a
recent poll, when gene therapy was presented as a means of curing fatal
diseases and preventing inherited birth defects, 84 percent of the respondents
were in favor of it. But many of this same group also, and inconsistently, said
that it was morally wrong to tamper with the genetic code of humans.
Ideas about the origins of disease also reveal the gap between scientific
and mythologic explanations of events. Some people in the United States, for
instance, believe that AIDS is a form of divine retribution against homosexuals
and drug abusers. In this, they echo the views of John Woolman, a prominent
American thinker in the 1700s, who wrote, "I have looked on the Smallpox
as a messenger sent from the Almighty, to be an assistant in the cause of
virtue." "One cannot help but wonder," Singer responds, "how Woolman
would have reacted to the recent worldwide eradication of the Almighty's
messenger. "
Replacing mythologic explanations with scientific ones `'wil1 be a difficult
job," according to Singer. Many myths are associated with accepted author-
ities, such as religion, or with unquestioned assumptions, such as the in-
violability of nature. Myth tends to be seen as human, Singer says. Science
tennis to be seen as inhuman.
A Mechanistic View of Nature
If scientists are to succeed in promoting their view of the world, they cannot
downplay those aspects of the scientific enterprise that the public finals trou-
bling. Instead, they must work to see that the scientific viewpoint is not
distorted by those who oppose it. In particular, says Singer, biologists need
30 SHAPING THE FUTURE
OCR for page 31
to discuss in a straightforward way the profoundly mechanistic view of the
natural world that has emerged from their work.
Scientists welcome a mechanistic view of nature, because it means that the
world is knowable, and perhaps explicable. But this viewpoint can easily be
caricatured to imply that the world is mechanical, devoid of purpose or mean-
ing7 inhuman. In fact, says Singer, a mechanistic view of nature by no means
rids the world of its significance and beauty. "It is time for us to declare that
our respect for nature, our love of its beauty, our concern for the environment,
are not diminished by a molecular view of its workings," she says.
A mechanistic view of nature also does not imply that scientists reject the
values that some see as inextricably associated with traditional premises and
authorities. Scientific understanding does not undermine fundamental human
assumptions "about good and evil, about justice, about freedom, about joy
and sadness," Singer says. "We need only look at other geneticists to realize
that human interactions are pretty much unchanged by our knowledge of
genetics. We still have the usual mix of kindness, friendship, nastiness,
respect, disrespect, philosophy, and religion that exists everywhere else."
An Agenda for Scientists
Scientists face two main tasks in their attempts to reduce public misgivings
about their work, according to Singer. The first is "to teach the substance of
science more broadly and deeply." Widespread ignorance about science needs
to be tackled starting with the youngest schoolchildren. For example, people's
questions about the implications of mapping and sequencing the human gen-
ome will require scientists to assess the work's impact and answer the public's
questions. Such educational efforts require time spent at meetings and hear-
ings, talking to the media, and dealing with legislators, time that most sci-
entists would probably prefer to spend on their research. But it is one of the
only ways to counter the views of those who woulc! see science constrained
by playing on the public's fears of science.
The second task is '`to convince non$cientists of the basically human nature
of science and scientists." Scientists midst reveal their own doubts and ques-
tions about the application of their work and be prepared to criticize "loud
and clear" when the results of their work are misapplied, Singer believes.
For instance, reports have surfaced that some parents are subjecting their
children to unknown dangers by giving them human growth hormone, now
plentiful thanks to recombinant DNA technology, to increase their stature for
athletic or social reasons. "We should object," Singer says. "We should remind
the public that evil deeds arise from human ignorance and greed, not from
high-tech opportunities."
THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVE 31
OCR for page 32
Scientists, and particularly biologists, should also seek to emphasize their
concern that animals used in scientific research are treated humanely. More
than anyone else, biologists recognize the value of animal research to basic
biological knowledge and to human and animal health care. They are over-
whelmingly opposed to those segments of the animal welfare and animal rights
movements that would curtail this research. But scientists cannot let their
opposition to these groups diminish their condemnation in those cases in
which inhumane treatment does occur. C`It will not hurt us indeed, it will
help public understanding of science if we admit that such cruelty troubles
us, too, or that some few members of our community may be willing to exceed
easily recognizable norms and should be stopped."
Biologists must also be vigilant about the possible misuse of their work for
biological warfare, Singer believes. The military contends that current work
on biological warfare is purely for defensive reasons, '`but research for defense
and offense is not very different in this field," Singer says. 'CWe have a special
opportunity to align ourselves with human values.
Finally, scientists must guard against mythologizing their own work by
looking to science for answers to every human problem. C`In our fervor for
science we too often forget humility," Singer says. C`We forget that our ig-
norance far exceeds our knowledge."
32 SHAPING THE FUTURE
Representative terms from entire chapter:
gene therapy
