

Is Science Dangerous? (2002) [pdf] - vince_refiti
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/symposia/interdisciplinary/ns120/lectures/wolpert.pdf

======
eemax
Of course science is dangerous. The study of atomic physics very nearly led to
nuclear war.

> Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is applied as technology.

I mostly disagree with this sentiment. If you're a nuclear physicist, and you
publish a paper about the theoretical aspects of fission chain reactions, and
realize that they may allow for good things, like nuclear power, and bad
things, like nuclear weapons, you have an obligation to consider the
consequences of how your research might be applied by others, do the cost-
benefit calculation, and decide to publish, or keep your knowledge a
secret[0].

Of course, in the vast majority of cases (GMOs, medical research, human
intelligence, etc., knock yourself out) it's probably better to publish - the
benefits far outweigh any costs. But I see no reason why this has to be
universally, fundamentally true - maybe there are secrets of the universe too
dangerous for publication - knowledge which, if made public, would predictably
lead to great destruction.

[0]:
[http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0207094](http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0207094)
Leo Slizard is usually credited as the first to come up with the idea of
weaponizing nuclear fission. Slizard was in favor of secrecy, Fermi was in
favor of publication, and for a while, they kept some of their discoveries a
secret. In the hindsight of history, this was probably not necessary, but at
least they weighed the consequences and had the debate.

~~~
jorleif
I feel this solves a very small part of the problem. This is only about the
morality of the individual scientist, while the problem is at the level of the
collective process of science. I mean, it is of course good if the individual
scientist who discovers X way to kill off humanity keeps it secret, but
eventually someone else will also discover X, and then someone else, and so
on. Do we require of scientists that they all keep these things secret?

Of course, we may not want to have terrorists building atomic bombs, so some
secrecy is prudent, but secrecy does not generally hinder: 1) Some bad people
from accessing said information, now having monopoly, which may make matters
even worse 2) Discovering the same thing independently - Yes, we may keep it
secret, but that does not change the laws of physics, the exploitation
potential is still there.

~~~
harperlee
It is a complicated matter... as long a science advances and is accesible to
all, we all gain more power. That enables everybody to be dangerous. I can go
anywhere in the world, access a huge amount of information, purchase and have
sent home lots of things very cheaply, etc.

We crave power, both in the sense of ability and energy, and it seems to grow
monotonically (Freeman Dyson proposed searching for efficient star-energy-
capturing devices as a way to find ET life:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere)).

But I agree, it seems that it is not very easy to prevent new science to be
discovered. We are a curious species, and even if we go back to the dark ages,
even if we move up or down the knowledge scale randomly, this brownian
movement will end up jumping too high, and giving too much power to someone.

So at least we should incorporate an element of respect to such power in our
education, our ethics, and try to prevent it from being lost. In my opinion,
this kind of thing is most efficiently managed through religion, but current
religions do not advance very quickly nor are amenable to "improvements",
whereas the idea of scientific religion, to us, now, seems abhorrent and
oxymoronic. I believe this might change in the future, though. If science
"just works" (and it is indistinguishable from magic), I could picture someone
stripping out the "scientific inquiry and skepticism" part, and building a
religion on top of the huge building of true scientific facts that we
faithfully take for granted.

So in my opinion we have to focus on education. Sorry for the rambling :)

------
tomaskazemekas
Articles like this one are coming up with similar questions from time to time.
For better understanding of the origin of suspicious attitude to science in
some social groups The Cultural Theory of Risk [1] is very helpful.

According to it "political conflict over environmental and technological risks
to a struggle between adherents of competing ways of life associated with the
group–grid scheme: an egalitarian, collectivist (“low grid”, “high group”)
one, which gravitates toward fear of environmental disaster as a justification
for restricting commercial behavior productive of inequality; and
individualistic ("low group") and hierarchical ("high grid") ones, which
resist claims of environmental risk in order to shield private orderings from
interference, and to defend established commercial and governmental elites
from subversive rebuke."

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk)

------
jacquesm
Super good piece. Science has a real PR problem though and that will be hard
to fix, the public image of scientists is one that is mostly one of fear and
distrust in spite of the visible good that science has done in almost every
life.

The media really aren't helping here. If 40 years ago 'being a scientist' was
a great thing to aspire to as a kid nowadays you're more likely to hear the
same thing about kids wanting to become lawyers or politicians.

Never mind that the lawyers and the politicians are more often than not the
anti-pode of constructive contributions to society.

~~~
one-more-minute
As someone from the UK, I haven't really noticed this. Is it a US thing?
(Possibly related to there being less religious thinking in Europe in
general?)

I've always felt that as a culture we see STEM degrees as more "real" or
valuable than more social subjects (for better or worse), in sharp contrast to
historical thinking. On top of that, TV series about science and mathematics
(astronomy in particular) only seem to be becoming more common and popular.

~~~
vinay427
As someone from the US, I think the examples you gave (how degrees are
perceived and TV series) also apply here. However, I feel like while STEM
qualifications are well-regarded as challenging yet necessary, they have lost
some of their glory from a few decades ago during the Cold War, etc. (as
portrayed in history textbooks, anyway) when it was more of an immediate
national security priority.

