Metacognitive Reading Report 1 (40 points). The Medawar Lecture ‘Is Science Dangerous?

’
Module 1 Section 1. Introduction to Science, Technology, and Society

Name: _
Course/Section: _ Date Submitted: __ ____
Instructions: After reading Lewis Wolpert’s The Medawar Lecture 1998 ‘Is Science Dangerous?’,
reflect and answer the following questions.
1. Obligatory Question – What did Lewis Wolpert mean when he stated that ‘reliable scientific
knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value’ (p. 1254)? Following this premise, when
does science become subjected to questions of ethics and morality?
- In their previous statement, they defended science by stating that it is only the pursuit of
knowledge and not the application of knowledge in life. With this context, the statement
‘reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value’, means that
knowledge itself does not harm anyone at all making it value free. It only gains moral or
ethical value because of technology due to the reason it produces usable objects from said
knowledge that may or may not harm people. Science only becomes unethical or immoral
when the scientific experiments being made to learn more about the world is causing harm to
life and humans.

2. Obligatory Question – In urging scientists to understand public concerns, Wolpert maintains,

“It is most important that they [scientists] do not allow themselves to become the unquestioning
tools of either government or industry” (p. 1258). What did he mean by this? Cite a local example
related to the country’s COVID-19-response.
- Wolpert is stating that scientists should still practice their own free will regarding how
scientific knowledge is handled. If the public does not believe in them, then make them
believe, if the government wants to question them, then prove them wrong. It is in this
way they show the value of learning about the world and continuing to solve its inner
mechanisms. Being a scientist isn’t just to be a tool for the world but to be society’s guide
in understanding the universe. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many
people were hesitant in taking the vaccines fearing that it might cause them harm due to
some situations wherein heart inflammation happened or blood clotting in the brain was
caused. But all of those were outliers, to combat these the government particularly the
DOH posted a campaign called #ChecktheFAQs to correct these misconceptions and
hope to make people feel safer.
3. Obligatory Question – Lewis Wolpert called eugenics a ‘rare case of immoral science’. Why did
he say so? Could the eugenics movement have been otherwise (moral)? Or was it ‘immoral’ right
at the start? Defend your answer.
- Wolpert continuously states in this article that technology is the one that is dangerous, but in
cases such as eugenics, technology can not be blamed for this as the situation can not be
described as applying learned knowledge to create a new object. Eugenics was a scientific
experiment aiming to keep producing only the “perfect” members of society so that
civilization will proper. For people who wanted to learn how the world work, in this case how
genes work, they set up a standard on how a passing candidate should be, which in their case
people that are just like them, white Europeans, not feeble minded, and not disabled. As a
result, anyone opposite to that standard were forced to face prejudice and through the
numerous campaigns held by eugenics believers, became victims of sterilization and
 segregation at the end. Right from the start it was an immoral plan. No human has the right to
set the standard on what should be acceptable to society even if it was to gain knowledge
about the world.

4. Free Choice Item– Towards the end of his article, Wolpert raised questions regarding the
intersections of science and technology with politics. Choose one of the questions Wolpert raised
and provide a practical answer/solution to it.

a. How do we ensure that the public are involved in decision making [on science and
politics]?
o The public can get involved by first, learning about the issues, the topic that is being
debated, the impact it can have to the society, the views of each side, but most
importantly, they should have no prejudice against these scientific topics. As Wolpert
says, there should be programs held to further understand what science is, its
difference to technology, and why it should be valued by society. By knowing the real
facts, it would lessen the bias against scientists but will also allow them to freely make
their opinion on them with the sufficient knowledge they now hold. However, it is still
up to the people in politics for both sides, the public and the scientists, to be heard.
Politicians should display that all three sides stand in equal footing and in equal
opportunities.
b. How can we ensure that scientists, doctors, engineers, bioethicists, and other experts, who
must be involved [in politics], do not appropriate decisions for themselves?
c. How do we ensure that scientists take on the social obligation of making the implications
of their work public?