Unit 3

Science and Technology

INTRODUCTION

It is almost impossible to imagine life without telephones, comput-

ers or motor vehicles of any kind. Much of the respect and awe with
which we regard science is due to our perception that science is the
driving force behind these and other technological improvements in
our lives. Indeed, it is not too hard to point to examples of scientific
breakthroughs that, through technology, have had positive impacts
on our lives.

Advances in biochemistry have allowed the invention and produc-

tion of better drugs improving both life expectancy and the quality
of life, at least for those able to afford them. As a result of a better
understanding of physics, buildings and bridges can be engineered
more reliably than they could even 50 years ago. An improved
understanding of aerodynamics and the behaviour of different mate-
rials under different conditions have made it possible to build larger,
faster, and more reliable aeroplanes which in turn has changed travel
and tourism dramatically. Perhaps the most outstanding technologi-
cal advance of the twentieth century is in computer and telecom-
munications technologies and their integration, which has brought
us the Internet. Some commentators have even spoken of the
“Death of Distance”1 as a result of these improvements.

FD12A 85
 For many, the advances in technology that have influenced our lives
so deeply are the hallmark of science. The average citizen does not
make any great distinction between science and technology, and the
activities of scientists and engineers. However, scientists themselves
do not share this view. They differentiate between the two, although
they admit that the two are closely interrelated. We must therefore
ask what the difference between science and technology is, and what
the relationship is between the two. There are many aspects of the
discussion we hope you enjoy exploring them here and afterwards.

OVERVIEW

In this unit of the course, we examine the difference between science

and technology and the complex set of relationships that exist
between the two. We shall see that the nature of the relationship
between science and technology has changed over the last 50 years.

Not all technological innovations have been useful. Some of the tech-
nologies, or some uses of them, have been harmful. This raises the
question of whether the people involved in the development of these
technologies – pure or applied scientists, engineers or technologists –
have any responsibility for ensuring the positive use of their work,
and if so, what this responsibility is. We turn to these questions in
the second part of this section. Module 2 of the course will examine
more examples of how both science and technology have changed
the way in which societies are organized.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this unit, you should be able to:

1. Distinguish between science and technology

2. Discuss the complex relationships between science and

technology

3. Describe, using examples, the extent to which these relationships

have changed over the last 50 years or so

4. Discuss the extent to which scientists and technologists are, or

86 FD12A
 should be, responsible for how the technologies derived from
their work are used

READINGS

• The Turbine. FD12A, Module 2 History, Section 3 pp 33 – 34 (end

of paragraph 2).
• Microscope and Telescope. FD 12A, Module 2 History, Section 3
pp 36 – 37
• The Nature of the Relationship between Science and Technology
(p 88)
• Aching, Richard. Perspectives on Patenting the Steelpan. News.
Government Information Services Government of the Republic
of Trinidad and Tobago, June 5, 2002.

NOTE

1. Cairncross, Frances. The Death of Distance. Boston, USA: Harvard

Business School Press, 1997.

FD12A 87
 Figure 3.1 Science and technology – their nature and relationship

88 FD12A
Session 3.1
The Relationship between Science
and Technology

What is technology?

Technology can be defined as the set of tools and techniques for

controlling and changing one’s environment. These technologies
come in all shapes and forms. They may be weapons with which to
hunt more efficiently or to kill one’s rivals more effectively, shelter
to protect oneself better from the elements, or agriculture, to ensure
a more consistent food supply. A simple sewing needle is as much
an example of technology as a digitally controlled sewing machine.

How is science different from technology?

Previously, we saw that the aim of science is the discovery, descrip-

tion, and understanding of facts about nature, whether on a large or
small scale, about things living or otherwise. Science can be regarded
as one attempt to satisfy the innate human need to understand
things. Science is about building theories that allow us to explain the
behaviours of the things around us and to make predictions about their
behaviours under different circumstances. Science thus, at least poten-
tially, fulfils two deep-seated human desires. The first is the desire
to understand our environment, the second, our need to manipulate
it to suit our needs and desires. We can attempt to control our envi-
ronment because science allows us to predict what will happen
when we make certain changes to one or more of its components.
Technology is about applying that understanding to the construction of
objects and procedures in the service of man.

Technology is as old as civilization

Our dependence on science nowadays suggests that scientific break-

throughs have to come before any technological innovations.
However, there are many examples of civilizations knowing that

89
 certain things work and knowing how to do things, without know-
ing why they work. Technologies have existed from the dawn of the
human race; it was not until fairly recently that scientific explana-
tions for why these technologies work became available. Indeed in
some cases they are still outstanding.

For example, many ancient cultures have left impressive buildings

and edifices, whose construction would have been impossible with-
out a high degree of technological sophistication. The ancient
Egyptians built their pyramids more than 3,000 years ago. More
than 1,000 years ago, the Native Americans of Central America,
such as the Aztecs and the Mayas, were highly sophisticated
masons and constructed impressive buildings. Other impressive
feats of construction include the Great Ruins of Masvingo in
Zimbabwe, which were constructed more than 1,000 years ago, and
the mediaeval cathedrals in Western Europe, many of which were
constructed around the same time.

The first wheels were

Moreover, the advanced technologies were not restricted to
found in Mesopota- construction. One can argue that one of the most useful inventions
mia dating back 5000
years ago. Although
of the human race was the wheel. Try to imagine life without
the Mayas used wheels! The wheel made it possible to transport heavy loads over
wheels on toys they large distances, thereby making the construction of large edifices
did not seem to have
recognized its less cumbersome. Interestingly, the Aztecs and Mayas did not use
significance. this piece of technology, which makes their elaborate constructions
even more amazing. Pulleys were another technological invention
employed in constructing ancient buildings.

Figure 3.2

90 FD12A
 Another important set of technologies involved the ability to extract
iron from iron ore and techniques for shaping iron into more
powerful tools and stronger weapons. The Chinese civilisation had
very advanced iron technology before the fifth century BC. Initially,
in the Western world the technologies used for extracting iron were
relatively primitive but they became highly sophisticated with the
evolution of furnaces and so on. Also, towards the latter part of the
eighteenth century they learned that by mixing iron with certain
other elements, such as carbon, they could make an even stronger
material called “steel”. The invention of steel allowed humans to
construct stronger and more reliable structures, such as bridges and,
a little later, sky scrapers, whose skeletons are constructed from steel.

Ancient Egyptian mummies provide another good example of a

sophisticated technology. The bodies that were mummified have
shown little sign of any decomposition more than 3,000 years later.
Recent research has established that those responsible for preparing
mummies used a complex combination of plant and other oils along
with other elaborate techniques to preserve the bodies of pharaohs
and other Egyptian nobles. There is no evidence that they knew
why these procedures worked but they must have discovered that
they did.

A final example of technologies that are worth mentioning is musical

instruments. Almost all human cultures have developed musical
instruments. Often they were used in religious ceremonies, although
they were also used for entertainment as well. Did these ancient civi-
lizations know anything about the nature of sound waves?
Apparently not!

ACTIVITY

Quickly review the above section and then answer the questions
below.

1. Give THREE examples from the passage above of

technological developments that did not depend on
knowledge of science.

2. Give one additional example you know.

FD12A 91 91
 3. For each of the examples you have provided, state which
branch of science could now offer explanations of how they
work. (Consider Biology, Chemistry and Physics. You may
suggest one or more than one for each example.)

Science can explain why some ancient technologies worked but

not all

It is clear that a wide range of technologies have been around for a

very long time. None of the feats of engineering mentioned above
relied on any scientific theories of the type discussed in the previous
section. There is no evidence of attempts to understand why these
various technologies worked. People seemed to be satisfied with the
mere fact that the technologies worked and had no desire to deter-
mine why they worked. Perhaps their religious faith did not lead
them to question the nature of things.

We know now that the oils used in the mummification process had
a number of anti-microbial properties that prevented the decomposi-
tion of the bodies covered in them. The priests and their helpers
who were responsible for mummifying bodies obviously knew that
these oils would preserve the bodies but not why they did. Indeed,
the discovery of microbes and their role in decomposition did not
take place until more than 2,500 years later. Similarly, the world had
to wait for the genius of Sir Isaac Newton, who lived from 1642 to
1727, to explain why the wheel allowed one to transport heavy
loads more easily, even though it had been in use for at least 10,000
years.

Does this suggest Even today there are many technologies that we know work but we
that science is not still do not know why they work. We know that certain animals,
necessary for human
progress? such as cows, pigs, chickens, camels, and yaks, can be domesticated
relatively easily and humans have been using this knowledge for the
last 10,000 years. What makes it possible to domesticate a horse
while a zebra (which does not look very different) is impossible to
domesticate? Perhaps we will never know the answer.

92 FD12A
 To what extent does modern technology depend on scientific
findings?

Although many technological innovations used to take place with-

out any intervention of science, this is no longer the case. Most
technological innovations these days, whether in information tech-
nology, medicine or agriculture, are a direct result of technologists
applying scientific theories. Technological advances now tend to
follow scientific breakthroughs, although not in all cases. It was
only after some important progress was made in physics in general
and aerodynamics in particular some 80 to 90 years ago, that it
became possible to design better and more reliable aeroplanes.
Another breakthrough in physics some 60 years ago allowed the
development of the nuclear bomb and nuclear power stations. These
advances would have been impossible without progress in physics.
We will return to this example later.

This trend has accelerated over the last 10 to 15 years. In the phar-
maceutical industry, progress in biochemistry and an increased
understanding of the chemical processes taking place in the human
body have made it possible to develop different and more powerful
drugs. Further developments in genetics are likely to lead to a better
understanding of how drugs can be tailored to an individual.
Similarly, a better understanding of HIV structure and how it
manages to undermine the body’s immune system have made it
possible to develop a wide range of anti-HIV drugs. These drugs
have significantly prolonged life for AIDS sufferers and those
infected with the virus, provided they can afford them. Many
modern technologies do not come cheap!

Other examples of breakthroughs in science leading to important

technological advances can be found in the field of computing and
telecommunications. A better understanding of optics has led to the
development of fibre optic cables and an explosion in the use of
computer networks such as the Internet. Also, breakthroughs in
electronics have made it possible to develop more sophisticated
musical instruments such as synthesizers.

Despite these examples of the links between science and technology

it should be noted that many modern technological advances are
made without any great breakthroughs in science. Good examples

FD12A 93
 are various kitchen gadgets, many of which make life considerably
easier for us but do not rely in any way on elaborate scientific
theories.

Technology does not always follow scientific breakthroughs

On the other hand there are examples where the basic science is
understood and the difficulty is in applying the scientific knowledge
to build useful technologies. The structure of DNA, the famous
double helix, has been known since the early 1950s. Crick and
Watson published the paper describing the structure of DNA in
1953, nearly 50 years ago. This knowledge offers exciting potential
for genetically engineering new foods and medicines but this poten-
tial has still not been fulfilled. Genetic engineers are still struggling
to find reliable ways of using this knowledge. (We will consider this
in more detail in Module 2.)

Sometimes science follows technology

An interesting Caribbean example of a technological breakthrough,

in the absence of scientific knowledge, is the steel drum, alleged to
be the only new harmonic musical instrument developed in the
20th century. The steel drum was developed in Trinidad by musi-
cians who could not even read music. They liked its sound and
learned to manipulate steel to produce a wide range of tones and
notes although they lacked any theoretical knowledge of the science
of harmonics. Indeed, the basic theory behind the steel drum is still
to be fully elucidated. Apart from the obvious theoretical interest,
such work would allow “pan tuners” to develop a more precise
system to tune this instrument. At present this is done purely by
ear. Research in this area would help to improve the manufacture of
the instrument. It is interesting to note that although the steel
drum was invented in the Caribbean, most of the work on the
science behind the instrument is taking place outside the region. In
fact, a patent has already been granted in America for one method
of manufacturing a steel drum. Research into the physics underlying
the sound quality and the properties of the metal of steel drums
started at the University of the West Indies St Augustine campus in
the early 1970s, but unfortunately was never completed.

94 FD12A
 ACTIVITY

1. From the passage above, give examples of modern technol-

ogy that depended on scientific findings in each of the
following areas: physics, biochemistry, genetics.

2. Describe briefly one modern technological advance that did

NOT depend on a scientific breakthrough.

3. Some important scientific breakthroughs have not produced

the great levels of technological development expected
although they would be of great value. Suggest why this
may be so. (You might like to use the example given in the
passage to support your reasons.)

4. Steel bands are highly developed musical instruments. Do

you think it is a waste of time trying to find out how they
work? Of what value could these scientific findings be?
(Consider contributions to music, education and economic
factors.)

Technology as an enabler of science

The relationship between science and technology is not one way.

Many of the advances in physics, astronomy and biology made in
the seventeenth and eighteenth century were made possible by the
invention of new instruments such as telescopes and microscopes.
In his groundbreaking work on the structure of the solar system,
Galileo relied heavily on observations that he made through a tele-
scope, a relatively new invention at that time. In other words, an
advance in technology was an important factor in an advance in
science.

Science has continued to rely on instruments to make its observa-

tions. Indeed, the reliance of science on technology has increased
significantly over the last 20 or 30 years. For example, virtually any
scientific observation made today relies on the use of computers, at
some stage.

This reliance on technology for scientific observation and experi-

mentation also points to questions about the reliability of these

FD12A 95
 observations, an issue that was discussed in the previous section in
connection with Galileo’s work. (See Module 1 Unit 2, Session 2.5.)
You may recall that Galileo only gained acceptance for his observa-
tions when he distributed telescopes and instructions for their use

Disagreements about the instruments that are used to gather obser-

n Find out about the
modern electron vations are still very much with us, especially in some of the social
microscope and its sciences. Consider the reaction of the general public or amateur
contribution to
science. Consider political analysts to the findings of surveys or polls because they
the magnification and have no faith in the instruments (the questionnaires) used to collect
what advances in
science it made the opinions of the public. Within the biological sciences there is
possible still much debate about the reality of some of the detailed structures
found in cells. Some argue that these structures do not exist in
living cells but have been created by the methods used to kill and
prepare cells for viewing under electron microscopes.

Technology and paradigm shifts

Technologies and instruments for making observations often play a

role in so-called paradigm shifts in science. Accepting a particular
paradigm implies acceptance of the methods used to collect the data
on which the paradigm is constructed. This in turn would include
accepting the instruments or technologies used to make the required
observations.

In the early 1910s most psychological research was conducted by

the use of introspection. The methodology involved psychologists
performing certain mental tasks, such as arithmetic or the composi-
tion of a poem, while simultaneously observing their own mental
activities. The basic data used to build psychological theories were
the reports written after these introspective sessions. J. B. Watson, a
prominent psychologist of the day, argued vigorously that this
“technology” was unreliable and that psychology needed to follow
the natural sciences and use more traditional scientific experiments.
While J. B. Watson made many other claims as well, some of which
have been subsequently rejected, his insistence on using directly
observable empirical data, rather than data obtained from introspec-
tion, has become part of the current psychological paradigm.

96 FD12A
 ACTIVITY

Discuss the inter-relatedness of technology and science. In your

discussion consider the following aspects of the relationship
between the two:

1. Technological advance in the absence of scientific knowledge

2. Science promoting new technological developments

3. Technology stimulating scientific research

4. Technology enabling scientific advances

5. Technological advances promoting paradigm shifts

CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

To what extent do you think modern scientists have become

overly dependent on technology at the expense of using their
scientific imaginations to develop new ideas?

FD12A 97
98 FD12A
Session 3.2
The Use of Technology and
the Scientist’s Responsibility

Some ethical considerations

Technology can be misused

At 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay, an American B-29

bomber, dropped an atomic bomb weighing 9000 pounds over the
Japanese city of Hiroshima and nearly 140, 000 people were killed.
Three days later, another bomb was unleashed on Nagasaki killing
73,884 people. The fierce blast winds, heat rays reaching several
thousand degrees and deadly radiation generated by the explosion
levelled an area of 6.7 million square metres. By the end of the
following year several more thousand citizens that had been injured
in the blast had died from radiation related illnesses or their injuries.
All told, nearly a quarter million people were killed. Which scientists
developed the theories that allowed such a bomb to be built? Who
developed the technology required to build the bomb and the
bombers? Who made the decision to use the bomb?

Who is responsible?
The story of the atomic bomb really starts with a physicist, Albert
Einstein. His famous equation, E = mc2 (and several other less
simple ones), provided the scientific information that made the
bomb possible. The Hungarian physicist, Leo Szilard was perhaps
the first to realize that the advances made in physics could be
applied to building a super weapon. In 1939, Szilard, who by that
time was living in the United States, persuaded Einstein to write to
President Roosevelt making him aware of the possibility of
constructing the nuclear bomb. It was President Roosevelt, who
decided to establish the so-called Manhattan Project with the
explicit mandate to construct an atomic bomb.

Szilard also took the initiative to circulate a petition among scien-

99
 tists working on the Manhattan Project urging President Truman,
Roosevelt’s successor, not to use the bomb. The petition argued that
the United States should not use the bomb against Japan because of
the devastating effect that it would have. However, the petition
never reached Truman and on his orders, the bomb was dropped.

One can draw a number of lessons from this story. The decision to
build and indeed the decision to drop the bomb were political, not
scientific, decisions. Some people believe that the scientists working
on the Manhattan Project were responsible for the annihilation of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The scientists disagreed. They saw a clear
demarcation between their responsibilities and that of government.
They accepted the responsibility of having used what they knew
about nuclear physics to construct the atomic bomb but they
believed that it was the responsibility of the government of the
United States to decide whether or not to use the bomb.

The issue of secrecy

A second lesson can be drawn from Szilard’s behaviour after the

War. Szilard insisted on making the implications of using the atomic
bomb public. Although he had insisted on secrecy before the War, on
the obvious grounds of national security, he believed it was his
responsibility to publicize the implications of the scientific and tech-
nological breakthroughs that had been made during the Manhattan
Project. Many scientists today would agree with Szilard’s position.

Most modern scientists are of the view that it is not the responsibil-
ity of scientists to decide how the technologies that can be devel-
oped, based on their scientific discoveries, should be used by society.
However, they accept responsibility for making the public aware of
the likely consequences of the use or abuse of these technologies. It
is then up to the politicians, who, after all, in democracies, are the
representatives of the people, to decide whether to use the technolo-
gies and, if so, how to use them.

Should the general public have a say?

A further question arises: To what extent should the people in a

democratic society be able to influence the decisions made by the
politicians that represent them? The importance of having a scien-
tifically informed and scientifically literate population is pertinent
100 FD12A
 here. Very often scientists have neither the inclination nor the
talent, to present their cases in public. Journalists or other commen-
tators with experience in public relations usually do this. Although
they often do a much better job at presenting a position than a
scientist, they themselves may be biased in one way or another.
Frequently, they win debates about the implications of scientific
research hands-down even when their position is scientifically less
valid. In the absence of an informed public the real facts though
published elsewhere remain “secret”.

An equally important issue is debate and disagreement within the

scientific community which is sometimes influenced by political
and economic policies. In a recent paper presented at the School of
Continuing Studies Country Conference in Montserrat, it was
pointed out that volcanologists of the Seismic Unit of the UWI, St
Augustine Campus had warned the government of Montserrat of
the likelihood of an eruption over 10 years ago. They suggested that
after Hurricane Hugo in 1989 the opportunity be taken to rebuild
the capital in the north of the island which is relatively safe. These
warnings were ignored in favour of the opinions of non-Caribbean
scientists because of cost and other considerations.

Should there be restrictions on scientific enquiry?

Another controversial debate surrounds the issue of using genetic

engineering techniques. Concerns about the possible misuse of these
technologies have overshadowed many of their possible benefits.
Many individuals and governments have expressed reservations
about the wisdom of encouraging further scientific research in this
area. They are concerned as to whether scientists take sufficient
responsibility for the technologies that can be constructed from
their research efforts. Scientists are seen as meddling with nature in
irresponsible ways and so highly motivated by the challenge of
making new discoveries that they forget to consider the social and
ethical implications of their work. In addition, much modern scien-
tific research is funded and controlled by large and powerful corpo-
rations that are largely motivated by profit. The recent debate in the
United States about stem cell research and cloning provides a good
illustration of these and other concerns about science.

FD12A 101
 Genetically modified foods – a case for caution?

The notion that scientists should take some responsibility for the
outcomes of using their discoveries might seem reasonable but it
raises other problems. Scientists do not always agree about the
implications of their theories. A good example of this is the continu-
ing debate on genetically modified (GM) foods. An increasing
proportion of corn and soy beans in the United States is grown
from seeds that have been genetically modified. The genetic makeup
of these plants has been changed artificially in ways that benefit
farmers and consumers and in some cases the plant. In Jamaica,
experiments are taking place at this moment with genetically modi-
fied papaya (paw-paw) plants. These papaya plants are grown from
cells that have a gene inserted into them to make the plants
immune to the papaya ring spot virus that affects the appearance of
the fruits.

Some scientists argue that genetic modification is nothing new.

They argue that selective breeding techniques used by dog owners
or flower growers have led to significant genetic modification and
that genetic engineering is merely a way of speeding up the selective
breeding process. Other scientists disagree because genetic engineer-
ing does more than just “speed up” selective breeding. Genes can,
and are, inserted from other species. For example, Brazil nut genes
are put into soybean plants, forming what can be considered new
species of plants. Since we cannot be sure what this new “species”
may turn out to be they urge caution when it comes to planting
and growing genetically modified foods. (For more on GM foods and
biotechnology see Module 2 Unit 5).

Who decides?

Despite the obvious problem with the position that scientists

should be responsible for making the implications of their discover-
ies public, and leave the decision on how to use the resulting tech-
nologies to the public at large or their representatives, the
alternatives are probably even less desirable. This could mean leav-
ing the decisions of what to do with technologies up to scientists
which is clearly inappropriate. Not all scientists and technologists
seem to be aware of the moral and ethical concerns of others.

102 FD12A
 This is well illustrated by the activities of some researchers in France
and Italy who are insisting on cloning a human being using the
techniques that allowed veterinarians in Edinburgh, Scotland to
clone Dolly the sheep. They persist in their right to this research
path despite major moral objections from large parts of the popula-
tion. Presumably they will proceed in secret but what are the conse-
quences of allowing such individuals to do their work in secrecy?

Keeping scientific discoveries secret is likely to retard scientific

progress. Typically, science progresses by scientists building on
earlier work in their field of interest. Obviously, if such work were
kept secret, it would be much harder to achieve scientific progress.

The importance of sharing scientific information among scientists

serves a very useful purpose. By publishing their work in journals,
participating in conferences, and publishing their dissertations scien-
tists (and all other researchers) are presenting their findings and
ideas to the wider academic public for criticisms and suggestions.
This review of work by their peers is an essential component of
academic progress. It keeps scientists “on their toes”, so to speak,
and gives them ideas for carrying forward their work. There are
some problems with the peer review process, however, not the least
of which is the unacknowledged use of other people's ideas and
destructive criticism, both motivated by competitive interests.

Finally, it would obviously be good if political decisions were made

on the basis of well-informed opinions. The decision whether to
allow the planting of genetically modified crops can only be made
responsibly if the people and their representatives have access to as
many of the relevant facts and scientific theories as possible. Clearly,
this requires that this knowledge be made public. It also requires a
public capable of understanding the information they receive.

The position that scientists make the consequences of their discov-

eries public but the public decides how to use the technologies made
possible by these scientific discoveries is fraught with problems.
However, like democracy, although far from perfect, it is probably
the best alternative we have.

FD12A 103
103
 ACTIVITY

Clearly the above discussion is not final. There are different

ways of looking at the issues discussed. You probably have your
own views on the matter.

Prepare BOTH sides of a debate on one of the following moots:

1. Scientists have no responsibility for what is done with their

work.

2. Governments have the responsibility to make decisions on

behalf of the people as to how technology is used.

3. The average citizen should not be concerned with the uses

of science and technology because they do not know enough
about them.

Suggestion: Arrange a debate with fellow students or colleagues.

If they are not following this course, share what you know with
them, to help them prepare for it.

SUMMARY

In this unit the following points were raised:

n Technology has had an important impact on our daily lives.

Much of modern technology is based on the results of scientific
research.

n Science and technology are not the same. Science is a search for
understanding how the world around us works, it seeks to offer
explanations for natural phenomena and build theories from which
predictions can be made. Technology can be defined as a set of tools
and techniques for controlling and changing the environment.

n Modern science and technology are interdependent. Sometimes

technology advances because of science and other times technology
provides the tools or the stimulus for scientific breakthroughs.
However, technology sometimes advances without any help from

104 FD12A
 science (as it did in ancient times) and putting some scientific ideas
to work has proved problematic.

n In discussing the responsibility of scientists and technologists it

was agreed that they are responsible only for making the implica-
tions of using their work public. The final decision as to how
science and its applications are used rests with the public and their
representatives. However, to discharge this responsibility effectively
the public must become scientifically literate.

FD12A 105