To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public?
This is a very difficult question to answer as there tend to be two sides to each leaf with this have the many reasons scientists should reveal information and other reasons which dictate why it should be kept a secret. Science is a field dedicated to exploration and investigating the unknown which can lead to a variety of new information and possible benefits. Scientists are constantly learning from old research or current research to hypothesise new ideas or develop old ones. With this mindset, it seems logical to share as much information as you can with the hope of further evolving our society in order for us to become the superior race.
Many scientists agree with the notion as a study published in the international journal PLOS expressed how modern scientists use social media as a form of communication with fellow peers. "Led by Kimberley Collins, Dr Jenny Rock of New Zealand’s University of Otago and David Shiffman of the University of Miami, it surveyed 587 scientists from a range of academic disciplines."(http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/releases/otago624116.html). A majority of the science population believed that social media has a lot of advantages which could the scientific field. They even appreciate forms of social media like twitter as it allows them to share their findings, results or information with fellow scientists and the population. This openness allows a for a dialect to easily be created and with multiple minds working together or even discussing results there is room for growth. All these compelling points make it seem like an easy choice but there are a lot of implications that may take place if all scientific knowledge is open to the public.
Humans are driven in science by curiosity which can be driven by logic, reason, imagination and emotion. Scientists do a lot of procedures to acquire their data which may conflict with the public's own morals. Animal testing has a lot of mixed signals from the public with some supporting it and some being against it, scientists use animal testing to avoid risking human lives but they do affect the creatures life. We only know some of the tests going on and there has been a lot of laws and regulations set into place to avoid the harm of animals as much as we can. These precautions were due to the public's morals criticising scientist's experimentation methods but what if these extreme measures lead to the cure for cancer? If 1,000 rats could die to save thousands and thousands of humans then would it be morally correct for scientists to test on them? Well, the real questions are if the public knew of this choice would they even be able to decide as we are very torn as human beings due to our emotion and logic based on our mental differences.
Let's take another point, humans naturally can panic and if governments were working on dangerous materials for radioactive warfare would the public have ethe right to know? Well, if they did then there is a possibility they would get support as it may defend their nation in the future or even get help from public scientists. However, this shared information may lead to the public's panic leading to revolutions or other political battles. This act of defence may even lead to other countries to panic in fear of what this product could lead to when the original country simply wants protection. The public knowledge would cause too much controversy that may stop they research of this radioactive warfare or aid it.
Humans are extremely unpredictable with their responses caused by emotion which may cloud their judgement so you might think it would be better to not release information thepublic. However, this emotion and logic are what dictates fear and morality which prevents the scientists from going too far with their technology. It mainly just depends on what is being released and what kind of research is being conducted.
No comments:
Post a Comment