Here's a link to a question about ethics and science:
In reference to Craig Venter's road towards "the world's first artificial organism," Good Friend of The World's Fair and guest contributor Oronte Churm asks:
"has there [ever] been a greater gap between the capabilities of science to create new technologies and the public's understanding of that science"?
I'll leave the question open and solicit comments, especially since it comes up semesterly in my courses here in the engineering school and I wouldn't want my students to think I have a single read on this. For here, I offer a few issues one would have to deal with before being able to pursue that larger one:
1. This requires a real working over of what the "public understanding of science" is.
2. It requires us to posit a measurement of the gap, once Question #1 is answered.
3. It also requires us to wonder if the public understanding of Robert Boyle's 17th century work was any more profound than our understanding today of Venter's. Or if indeed we non-biologists are further away from comprehending Venter's work than we would've been comprehending Einstein's theories. And so forth.
The spirit of Churm's query is to wonder if "just because one can do something doesn't mean one should do it." And from this, he opens up a nice thought about ethics in science. (Or, okay, since I just returned from teaching my engineering ethics course, how about ethics in engineering too, especially since the blurred distinction between science and engineering with such research as Venter's is a fourth issue to address in the list above.)
On Issue #1 above, see this post on Audience as a way to track back to other discussions of the same. Addressing that one, I suggest, is as much an ethical issue as the ethics of whether or not to pursue such research.
- Log in to post comments
No one is anywhere near to a genuine "artificial organism", except in the most trivial and uninteresting sense of the term, in which case, we already have created bajillions of "artificial organisms".
See this post for detailed explanation of this:
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/02/artificial_life_foofaraw.php
Yes, thank you P.P. I meant for the thrust of the post to ask not about the novelty of artificial organisms or how close Venter really was, but about ideas of public understanding and the related issues that come with such a query. (Though upon re-reading the post, it's clear I rushed it without proper explanation.)
I wonder more now--and would maybe rewrite the post to emphasize this--why we think science is too complex for public understanding at this point in time as compared to the past, when general levels of education were also less developed or possible. Haven't the stakes been raised on all accounts, not just the scientific?
I don't say that with assertiveness or certainty. I actually think it would be an interesting discussion to pursue.
"why we think science is too complex for public understanding at this point in time as compared to the past"
I don't think this at all. I believe that all scientists should be able to, indeed have a duty to, explain their science in intelligible terms to non-scientists.
"all scientists should be able to, indeed have a duty to, explain their science in intelligible terms to non-scientists."
I'll steal a line from a friend to argue that all scientists have a duty to understand "publics" better. Science's understanding of publics is as underdeveloped as the opposite.
The bigger question is do the public want to be educated in the first place? There are plenty of excellent books out there on Evolution that are accessible and easy to read for non-scientists. Yet in this country we have a level of ignorance around evolutionary theory that extends right up to the presidency.
So, it's not a question of scientists not trying (although there's no harm in trying harder) to educate, it's a question of the public looking for easy answers in the form of soundbites or sermons to avoid the effort of education.
I think that cuts both ways. The gap in understanding is mirrored by a communication gap many scientists are unwilling to try to bridge (the activation energy is too high). One of my favourite columnists put it this way:
" Non-scientists have conversations that include lots of things like "that's really interesting," and "Gee, I never knew that." They often nod their heads in the affirmative. They don't say, "Are you sure? How do you know? But what was the control?" "
full article at: http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/116/24/4865
The general public tends not to care what the actual "facts" are, in terms of science, religion, politics or anything else. Us humans tend to be myopic, and see only what immediately involves us advantageously of dis-advantageously. I know I am very cynical in this, but living in different places around the world, and seeing the same selfish tribal instincts everywhere make me this way. Whilst educating the general public in science is vital, I see it as more important to educate them generally first. How much have you educated someone if you tell them E = MC squared if that person doesn't know that 3 squared is 9? Or what E, M and C stand for? How much have you educated someone by saying you have created synthetic DNA plasmids if they don'tnow what DNA is? We have to educate from the ground up. We have to educate everyone, because our human tribal instinct will lets us - very easily - educate the ignorant that people in a foreign land who look different want to kill us at any cost with any chance they get. No prior education is required for that. No math or biology, just human instinct. Not an easy one to solve, but I know there are a lot of bright people out there.