Giuseppe Insana - 墨白

Science should not meddle with Society
and vice versa

(My views on the Science & Society issue - Nov 2000)

I've recently assisted to a conference concerning the dialog between Science and Society. A variety of different topics had been presented and discussed, ranging from pandemics to human reproduction, from biotechnologically modified crops to legal issues concerning genetic information, from eugenics to the divulging of science.
Even if I've found the talks very stimulating and interesting, I'm strongly opinionated against the meddling of Science into Society and, conversely, about the opposite-directed interference.
This is due to what I perceive is the role and scope of Science.

Science is a concerted struggle to ask questions about "life, universe and everything else" and to try to answer those questions in a plausible way.
It started as human curiosity toward nature, it evolved into religion, then philosophy and eventually experimental science (passing through - among the others - Bacon's inductivism, Newton's hypothetico-deductivism, Popper's falsification, Kuhn's concept of paradigm).

The answers are never definitive, they are (or should be: more on this later) always tentative models that can be abandoned at once in the moment a better model comes out. 'Better model' means one that seems to explain things in a better way, more accurately, covering more aspects, having higher predictive power.
Sometimes a different model is accepted only because it's simpler, applying what is referred to as "law of parsimony" or "Ockham's razor": 'if all other aspects are equal, the simplest theory is preferred over other theories involving additional factors'.

Invariably there are many theories that explain exactly the same data, and at least some of the theories will contradict each other (this is usually called the "underdetermination of theories", Ockham's razor is one way out of it).
This is one of the big misconceptions of the non-scientists in regards to science.
They usually hold the belief that science provides Truth (the capital letter can easily be felt) and they are puzzled when they discover, for example, that there are big disagreements between scientists on scientific topics.
Sadly, also many scientists manifest a strong attachment to what has been "proved" (beating the purposes above sketched) and end up clutching strong beliefs, incredibly reluctant to give up old ideas.
Anyway, I'll put aside the questions about the tenacity (the severe loyalty to theories, even troubled ones) with a single quote from physicist M. Planck who said: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it'.

What I really want to delve into is that in science's objectives there are no hints to politics, ethics or social issues. Nowhere is stated anything on the line "science should work toward making useful things" (either vaccines or weapons, take your pick) or "science should regulate people's lives" et cetera.
Scientists devote their energies (often their lives) to elaborate equations, solve structures, study genetic and protein sequences, analyse particle trajectories at relativistic speeds.
In their role as scientists, they are not (and should not be) concerned with how what they discover will be used (or abused).
Of course, they are also humans and share with other humans feelings, cares, imperfections, goals, hopes, rivalries.
Of course, every scientist would have enlightened heart and great pride if his/her discoveries would prove helpful for e.g. saving lives.
But scientists get excited for discoveries that non-scientists would find very difficult to relate in any useful way to their world. Scientists can spend years working on obscure and abstruse experiments that seem just out of the global picture. Because even if their data comes from the world we all inhabit, their scope is in another world, mirrored inside the scientific perception of things, its weltanschauung, where theories, models, experiments, deductions are the major elements. Where there's no shame in asking and intense motivation to provide answers.

Scientists should be allowed to experiment freely and totally, without any tether or inhibition. Inside the laboratory, everything should be allowed (with notable obvious exceptions) and encouraged.

The notable exceptions refer to experiments that are either illegal or clearly dangerous. Illegal is of course a relative concept that varies from state to state. The same thing applies to morals. What is considered moral in one part of the world would be regarded as outrageous in another. Hence scientists could enroll into "scientific tourism" to experiment on topics disallowed in their home country. And the risk factors, even in a controlled environment like that of the lab, are sometimes difficult to evaluate.
These concepts of "legality" and "danger" are of course a bit fuzzy and they should be explored further. A commission of scientists could decide on these matters. Science regulating itself, ideally without moral influences.

What then from science is brought into the "outer world" (extra-laboratory) comes into the sphere of influence of:

• Technology and Engineering (finding application possibilities of science discoveries)
• Politics (deciding where to invest, what to introduce and to what extent)
• Ethics, morals, law (discussing and possibly deliberating about acceptable applications)

Why should science be left free of outside tampering?
Because otherwise potentially rewarding areas of research won't be exploited.
Science is always advancing into some uncharted territory - to quote some biological ideas that are nowadays very accused: artificial wombs, cloning, organ artificial growth, genetically engineered organisms, use of viruses in gene therapy. To scientists, this is considered progress: new answers and the possibility of asking new questions.
But an increasing number of ethical committees are established to monitor potentially "immoral" areas of research, such as cloning. Grants are withheld from politically sensitive projects. Governments are coming up with laws to ban research involving practices they disapprove, such as using tissues from aborted fetuses. Increasingly, scientists feel pressured into abandoning work in contentious areas such as genetics and fertility.
How much valuable research has been and will be prevented?
This is the main reason why outside pressures should be lifted.
Nobody can predict what will tomorrow be the fruits of today's research. Very often discoveries came from a totally unexpected (often serendipitous) direction. Not even science can direct itself to specific themes (it would completely beat its purpose, constraining into a particular area, abandoning eclecticism), so why should something else direct it?
Anyway, very often science finds its ways even when directed. As one example, the cold-war funded research toward space defense has led to medical applications of lasers.
But every constriction is a probable loss of possibilities.

The problem with this view is that the separation between a discovery and its application into human society is increasingly narrower. With the reduction of the time gap between scientific work and technological invention, the distinction between the two areas has become blurred. But even if it's not so easy to separate the two, it's worth keeping in mind the radical difference in scope and goals between them.

Where do the anti-science feelings originate? In many cases a central feature of them is a pessimism about the future and the opinion that scientists can only mess things up, while tinkering with nature. This dark view is interestingly opposed to the attitudes pervading society earlier in the 20th century.
At that time future was going to be extraordinary and people found it exciting. Utopian worlds were imagined and depicted (famous the worship of progress in the works of Hugo Gernsback, the coiner of the word "science fiction", in 1926). Science was seen as the messiah bringing the good life. Since people believed science and technology would have brought Utopia, and this hasn't been the case, one of the reasons for modern skepticism and pessimism about science could be disillusion.
The concern to protect nature, from which the rise of environmentalist thinking, is connected with this new suspicion of science and has led to calls for stricter controls over scientific research (even to the point of asking entire areas of science to be banned).
But inhibiting research can have serious consequences. The history of science shows that pioneers have always followed their instinct, experimented for the sake of it, allowed their curiosity and imagination to be their only limits. What would have been - for example - the evolution of medicine if we had since the beginning forbidden dissection of human bodies?
I could continue further, but I find it more appropriate to move on to the other direction of the interaction.

Scientists are not politicians (they lack experience, motivation, often charm). They know that they'll never have the complete picture (nobody could), so why should they be called to judge?
If politics or society turns to science asking for suggestions on how to behave in particular issues, they will (or they should: the views expressed are personal and probably utopian) find a description of the problem, an evaluation (of variable quality) of pro and contra - risks and benefits - an insight into particular outcomes (with demonstrated high fallacy; hopefully an admission of low predictive power or even of ignorance should always be added) but not a clear-cut answer and even less a suggestion.
How could a scientist be called to influence the world? He/she will of course, as a citizen, be voting. But not as a scientist.
It's not a P. Pilate (notorious for washing its hands out of an issue) attitude the one I am endorsing. As a human, the scientist needs to worry about society, but in its role as a scientist he/she should not be bound, should not be influenced, should not influence if not in a scientific way.
I.e. explaining, educating, evaluating, not expressing his/her personal opinions but the general scientific views about the topic. The current knowledge, the best esteem of the possibilities.

At the same time the world should support science (because doing so has proved very bountiful so far) and let it free to explore the space of possibilities.
Is this risky? Obviously. But not much more than what politics, industry and other forces toy with every day. Unregulated mad science is not what I am aiming at, but self-regulated science; without outside influence, pressures, witch-hunting, ethical or religious restrictions.

There is an important aspect in which science interacts directly with society. An aspect that should always be supported and enhanced.
Science was above depicted as Experimentation. Science is also Education.
Science is teaching what has been understood so far of the world that surrounds us. Teaching the notions. Teaching the methods to reach to notions. Teaching the philosophy behind science.
Not only scholastic teaching, but also adult education, spread of knowledge, divulgation of all aspects of science, including its philosophy, in an attempt to dispel the misconceptions and to bring forth not only science but also the scientific vision and perception, its point of view, its goals and methods.
With more understanding (this is not unidirectional, scientists often need to be educated about society issues and values as much as the opposite) probably the desired non-influence delineated above would not be an imposition but a natural, mutually understood and accepted relationship.

The views hereby exposed (in a fragmentary and sketched form, I must admit, due to lack of sufficient time) may remind the reader of the world depicted in "The glass bead game" by Hermann Hesse. In the book, scientists live (in the region named Castalia) a monk like existence, completely financed by the state, devolving their life to serve knowledge^[1]. The separation between "temporal" and "secular", "matter" and "spirit", "science" and "society" is complete and source of an increasingly wider gap between scientists and non-scientists.
Probably (as pointed out by Hesse that especially critics the lack of the study of history, considered too much a human, earthy, volatile topic when compared to the timelessness of mathematics and music) that utopia is in reality a dystopia and an extreme we shouldn't beseech.

I apologize for the fuzzy language, confusing form, incomplete contents.
I do not apologize for my bad thoughts.

Minimal Assorted Bibliography

K. Popper "Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge"
T. Kuhn: "The structure of scientific revolutions"
D. Adams "Life, the universe and everything"
H. Hesse "Das Glasperlenspiel (The glass bead game)"