JANNAVIEL A.

MIRANDILLA
BSA-2A

Activity 1: Is Science Dangerous?

(REFLECTION PAPER)
Science and technology has been known by others to be connected, well the article itself have a
reason on why these two is separate, but it still a pair that is inevitable to make a wide decision on how
the world would run as it depends on humans critical thinking, whether these scientific discoveries
should be done for good or for bad reason. Science made virtually no contribution to technology until
the nineteenth century (Basalla 1988). Even the great triumphs of engineering like the steam engine and
Renaissance cathedrals were built without virtually any impact of science. It was imaginative trial and
error and they made use of the five-minute theorem—if, when the supports were removed, the building
stood for five minutes, it was assumed that it would last forever. Galileo made it clear that the invention
of the telescope was by chance and not based on science. Science is neutral, it is a medium for
discoveries and knowledge, but mostly people seen them as dangerous, well in fact, it is just an
information provided by the scientist to make the world be known; on how it works. As for the idea that
science is dangerous, the culture or specifically the religions, is behind with this, for pointing the
scientist to be referred as ‘playing at God’. However, dangers and ethical issues only arise when science
is applied in technology. Ethical issues can arise in actually doing the scientific research, such as carrying
out experiments on humans or animals, as well as issues related to safety, as in genetically modified
(GM) foods. There are now claims that the techniques used in nanotechnology may release dangerous
chemical compounds into the environment. Take this another example of nuclear bomb, where people
would mostly think that scientist is behind of this, well in the creation it is true, but in the decision of
whether it must be done, the government is in the position. The social obligations that scientists have as
distinct from those responsibilities they share with all citizens, such as supporting a democratic society
and taking due care of the rights of others, comes from them having access to specialized knowledge of
how the world works that is not easily accessible to others.

Moreover, scientists rarely have power in relation to applications of science; this rests with
those with the funds and the government. The way scientific knowledge is used raises ethical issues for
everyone involved, not just scientists. Science also contributed the eugenics, where it defined as the
science of improving the human stock by giving ‘the more suitable races or strains of blood a better
chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable. This idea has been eyed by the public, and it causes
such as negative and positive reactions. In fact, modern eugenics aims to both prevent and cure those
with genetic disabilities. Recent advances in genetics and molecular biology offer the possibility of
prenatal diagnosis and so parents can choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. There are those
who abhor abortion, but that is an issue that should be kept quite separate from discussions about
genetics. Science also involves with reproduction, such as cloning, genes and stem cells. In terms of
cloning there are disturbing and disadvantages when doing this research, as it carries a high risk of
abnormalities where numerous scientific studies on other animals are shown.

There is a division for politics and science, whereas science is a sphere of knowledge and understanding,
while politics is a sphere of opinion. There are surveys that show some distrust of scientists, particularly
those in government and industry. This probably relates to BSE and GM foods and so one must ask how
this apparent distrust of science actually affects people's behavior. Other people is in need to be
persuaded that many of those who have this claimed distrust would refuse, if they’ll, to take a drug that
had been made from a genetically modified plant, or would reject a tomato so modified that is was both
JANNAVIEL A. MIRANDILLA
BSA-2A

cheap and would help prevent heart disease. Government influences that perspectives of the people on
whether to trust or not the scientist suggestions or ideas, just like providing the GMO food. The public
are not a fan of GMO food as there are some products purposely labeled to be non-GMO as if it is
dangerous, but the truth is, it is really unnecessary to do it. Because there are no findings that GMO are
said to be dangerous. Science is not entirely dangerous, because it only delivers knowledge and
discoveries that would purposely lead humans to be knowledgeable, and it is in the hand of us, as
humans on whether we use it for the better or for worse.