Sunday, February 01, 2009

Whatever Do You Mean, Rightful Place?


Science Holds the Key - Or Does It?


  • "Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation." Thus, proclaimed Barack Obama in a radio address this past December. He drove the point home in his inaugural speech, declaring, "We will restore science to its rightful place."

    But just what does Mr. Obama mean by "rightful place"? He obviously intended to contrast his approach to science with that of President Bush, but what does this contrast imply? President Bush believed that scientific inquiry should be circumscribed by ethical constraints. He, therefore, refused to allow federal funding for stem cell research that would result in the destruction of human embryos. Bush was dubbed a "neanderthal" by many scientists because he felt that "ethics" should trump "utility." He was pilloried for his decision and President Obama has been among his critics.

    Is ethical restraint of scientific inquiry the problem that Obama seeks to correct? Should scientific inquiry trump ethics?

  • While science has brought mankind countless benefits, it should not be held out as the fount of all knowledge. Yet, it frequently is. Scientists have been anointed the high priests of our modern era, when, in reality, they are mere mortals: fallible, biased, frequently mistaken, and subject to undue influence. Unlike the media's portrayal, the scientific community is frequently divided—there is very little "consensus." And often, the "prevailing view" is later proven wrong.


Science can be a very useful tool, used properly. Extremely useful. It can also be used for evil, and sort of like a gun, it totally depends on the character of the person using it. The character of some of the people using it lately has been getting a bit shabby.

No comments: