Is Science Dangerous? - Lecture Notes

The Medawar Lecture 1998: Is Science Dangerous?

Introduction

The idea that science is dangerous is deeply rooted in our culture, as seen in literature and historical narratives.
Examples:
- Adam and Eve forbidden from the Tree of Knowledge.
- Milton’s Paradise Lost: The serpent refers to the Tree as the ‘Mother of Science’.
- Archangel Raphael advises Adam to be ‘lowly wise’ when questioning the universe.
Western literature often portrays scientists negatively, depicting them as meddling with nature with disastrous consequences.
Examples: Shelley’s Frankenstein, Goethe’s Faust, Huxley’s Brave New World.
There is a persistent image of scientists as a soulless group of males who can damage our world.
Fear and distrust of science stem from:
- Genetic engineering and perceived ethical issues.
- The effect of science in diminishing spiritual values.
- Fear of nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
- The impact of industry in despoiling the environment.
Revulsion towards humankind's meddling with nature, longing for a Rousseau-like return to an age of innocence.
Anxiety that scientists lack wisdom and social responsibility, driven by ambition regardless of consequences; often referred to as ‘playing at God’.
These criticisms coexist with the hope that science, particularly in medicine, will cure major illnesses like cancer, heart disease, and genetic disabilities such as cystic fibrosis.
It is worth noting that while scientists are blamed for environmental issues, science is also crucial in identifying these risks (e.g., global warming, BSE).
The media is largely responsible for the misunderstanding of genetics, often sensationalizing it into ‘genetic pornography.’
- Example: A publicized image of a human ear on the back of a mouse.
Science provides a reliable, logical, quantitative, testable, and elegant way of understanding the world and is at the core of our culture.
A significant part of grasping science is understanding that scientific explanations often defy common sense.

Technology

A critical issue is the conflation of science and technology.
Science produces ideas about how the world works, while technology applies that knowledge to create usable objects.
Technology is much older than science.
Early human crafts like agriculture and metalworking arose without scientific aid.
Science made virtually no contribution to technology until the nineteenth century.
Even engineering triumphs like the steam engine and Renaissance cathedrals were built largely without science, relying on trial and error.
Galileo noted that the invention of the telescope was by chance, not science.
Technology, rather than science, typically generates ethical issues, from motor cars to cloning.
Much modern technology is founded on fundamental science, but the relationship between science, innovation, and technology is complex.
Basic scientific research is driven by academic curiosity, and the linear model (scientific discoveries put into practice by engineers) is incorrect.
Marketing and business skills are as important as those of science and engineering; scientists rarely have the funds or power to implement their ideas.
Reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value.
Science describes the world as it is, without inherent good or bad.
Ethical issues arise when science is applied in technology or during scientific research (e.g., experiments on humans or animals, safety concerns like GM foods).
Claims exist that nanotechnology techniques may release dangerous chemical compounds into the environment.

Social Responsibility

Sir Joseph Rotblat proposed a Hippocratic oath for scientists in response to the idea that science is neutral.
Rotblat advocates for an oath or pledge initiated by the Pugwash Group in the USA, emphasizing socially responsible use of science and technology.
The pledge includes promises not to harm human beings or the environment and to consider ethical implications before taking action.
The difficulty lies in the unpredictable nature of scientific discoveries and their applications.
Cloning is a good example: initial studies focused on frog embryo development to understand gene loss or deactivation, with cloning being an incidental outcome.
Scientists cannot easily predict the social and technological implications of their research.
Examples: Radio waves were initially deemed impractical, and Lord Rutherford dismissed the idea of atomic energy as ‘moonshine’.
The social obligations of scientists, beyond those of ordinary citizens, arise from their specialized knowledge.
Their obligation is to make public the social implications and technological applications of their work, as well as assess its reliability.
The public needs to understand the reliability of scientific ideas, especially in areas like human and plant genetics.
Scientists should not make moral or ethical decisions regarding new technology, as they have no special rights or skills in these areas.
There is a danger in asking scientists to be more socially responsible if it means they have the power to make decisions on their own.
Scientists rarely have the power in relation to the applications of science; power rests with those with the funds and the government.
Ethical issues in the use of scientific knowledge involve everyone, not just scientists.
Regarding the atomic bomb, scientists fulfilled their social obligations by informing their governments; the decision to build the bomb was political, not scientific.
Scientists have an obligation to clearly communicate the reliability of their ideas and the public should critically evaluate the evidence.
Programmes for the public understanding of science are crucial.

Eugenics

Eugenics is a classic example of scientists behaving immorally.
In 1883, Francis Galton (Darwin’s cousin) coined the word eugenics from the Greek ‘good in birth.’
Eugenics was defined as improving human stock by giving ‘the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.’
The scientific assumption was that desirable and undesirable human attributes are inherited.
Talent, pauperism, insanity, and feeblemindedness were considered inherited.
Between 1907 and 1928, approximately 9000 people were sterilized in the USA on grounds of being ‘feebleminded.’
Eugenics received support from a wide group of scientists and non-scientists.
Charles Davenport established the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories to study human evolution and collected human pedigrees.
Davenport believed that undesirable characteristics were associated with particular races and proposed negative eugenics to prevent proliferation of the bad.
He favored selective immigration to prevent contamination of the ‘germ plasm.’
The eugenicists considered many undesirable characteristics such as prostitution as being genetically determined.
In the 1930s, geneticists began to resist the wilder claims for eugenics, but it was too late, as the ideas had taken hold in Germany.
The ideology of the National Socialists claimed a biological basis for the diversity of mankind.
In 1933, Hitler’s cabinet promulgated a eugenic sterilization law making sterilization compulsory for anyone with a perceived hereditary weakness.
This is considered the outstanding example of the perversion of science, leading directly to atrocities in concentration camps.
Scientists failed to give an assessment of the reliability of their ideas or sufficiently consider their implications; their conclusions were driven by their perceived desirable social implications.
The main lesson is that scientists can abuse their role as providers and interpreters of complex phenomena.
Scientific knowledge should be neutral and value-free; when mixed with political or social aims, it can be perverted.
Modern eugenics aims to prevent and cure those with genetic disabilities, offering prenatal diagnosis to allow parents to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
The Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus cooperated with clinical geneticists to reduce the number of children born with thalassemia.
There is little reason to oppose curing genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.

Reproduction: Cloning, Genes, and Stem Cells

Mary Shelley’s image of scientists meddling with human life has become a potent symbol of modern science, particularly distorted in discussions about human cloning.
The cloning of sheep has been blindly followed by the media, leading to moral outrage without the spelling out of new relevant ethical issues.
The ‘yuuk’ factor is not a reliable basis for making judgments.
If one could clone Richard Dawkins, it would not necessarily be terrible, as genes are not the only factor; the environment is crucial, and clones may be rebellious.
The feelings of a cloned child about its individuality must be considered, but this issue is common to other types of assisted reproduction.
Cloning is opposed due to the high risk of abnormalities, as shown in animal studies.
Those who propose to clone a human are medical technologists, not scientists.
The important issue is how the child will be cared for.
Having a child raises real ethical problems, as parents, not scientists, ‘play God’ through their tremendous power over young children.
There is evidence that as many as 10% of children in the UK suffer abuse.
It is better to accept abortions and the destruction of unwanted frozen embryos than a single unwanted child who will be neglected or abused.
The same applies to severely crippling and painful genetic diseases; parents should not be allowed to have a severely disabled child when it can be prevented by prenatal diagnosis.
Hostility to ‘designer babies’ ignores the possibility that unsuitable parents can have children even if they are child abusers or drug addicts.
Scientific innovation has not outstripped our social and moral codes; rather, obsession with the life of the embryo has deflected attention from how babies are raised and nurtured.
The ills in our society are profoundly affected by how children are treated.
Bioethics is a growth industry, but one should approach it with caution as bioethicists have a vested interest in finding difficulties.
Fears about cloning enormous numbers of genetically identical individuals are science fiction.
It is easy to be misled as to what genes actually do for us; there is no single gene for complex traits.
Using a convenient way of speaking, there are numerous references to, for example, the gene for homosexuality or the gene for criminality.
A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics emphasizes viewing the whole human as a person but may have neglected to explain how genes affect all aspects of our life, including behaviour.
The author argues that all of science is essentially reductionist and, in failing to make this clear, the Nuffield Council may have done bad service to genetics, developmental biology, and neuroscience.
Gene therapy carries risks, as do all new medical treatments.
Anxieties about designer babies are premature, and we may have to accept procreative autonomy.
Bio-moralists should devote attention to other technical advances, such as transport, which causes many deaths and injuries each year.
Applications of embryology and genetics, in striking contrast, have not harmed anyone.
Stem cells have the potential to alleviate medical problems, with the best stem cells obtained from early embryos.
Opponents of using early embryos see the fertilized egg as already a human being.
The early embryo is not an individual, as it can give rise to twins.
IVF involves the destruction of many embryos, and there is no ethical distinction between IVF and getting embryonic stem cells.
The same is true for therapeutic cloning to make stem cells that would not be rejected by the immune system of the patient.

Politics

John Carey writes that the real antithesis of science seems to be not theology but politics.
Politics depends on rhetoric, opinion, conflict, and coercion.
Science, ultimately, is about consensus as to how the world works, and its conclusions would be the same even if its history were rerun.
Surveys show some distrust of scientists, particularly those in government and industry, probably related to BSE and GM foods.
The actual effect of distrust in science on people’s behaviour needs to be assessed.
No politician has publicly pointed out that the ethical issues in therapeutic cloning are indistinguishable from those in IVF.
Genetically modified foods have raised public concerns, and we must rely on regulatory bodies for assessment of their safety.
New medical treatments cannot be given to all, and rationing poses serious moral and ethical dilemmas.
The question is raised whether there are areas of research that are so socially sensitive that they should be avoided or proscribed, such as the genetic basis of intelligence or the link between race and intelligence.
The author cherishes the openness of scientific investigation too much to put up such a note, standing by the distinction between knowledge of the world and how it is used.
One should not abandon the possibility of doing good by applying some scientific idea because it can also be used to do bad.
Once one begins to censor the acquisition of reliable scientific knowledge, one is on a slippery slope.
Thomas Jefferson’s advice is commended: ‘I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their direction.’
One must ensure that the public is involved in decision-making and that experts do not appropriate decision-making for themselves.
Scientists must take on the social obligation of making the implications of their work public.
We have to rely on the institutions of a democratic society.
Programmes for the public understanding of science are important, but we still do not know how best to do this.
The law dealing with experiments on human embryos is a good model.
Scientists must learn to understand more about public concerns and interact directly with the public but should not become unquestioning tools of government or industry.
When the public are gene literate, the problems of genetic engineering will seem no different from euthanasia and abortion.