Is Science Dangerous?

By Lewis Wolpert

In his commentary "Is science dangerous?", Lewis Wolpert attempts to answer the age–old question of whether knowledge (and therefore science, as the source of knowledge), poses a risk to society. In order to do so, he makes a crucial differentiation between pure science as knowledge that enhances our understanding of the world, and technology, which is the application of scientific research (Wolpert 281). If we agree that pure science is void of morality, then the real question becomes: does the development of new technology, particularly in the field of genetics, pose a risk to society? If so, whose job is it to protect the people? This analysis seeks to answer those questions. Wolpert asserts that scientists have neither the rights nor the skills necessary to make moral decisions regarding the ethics of the use of new technologies (281). This may be true, but in whose hands do we then leave the decision? The government's? Wolpert seems to think so, and uses two contrasting examples to illustrate his point. He compares the failure of the German eugenicists in their responsibility to society to the apparent success of the Allied scientists working on the Manhattan Project in meeting theirs (281). What about the American and Canadian eugenics movement? Even if "scientists completely failed to give an assessment of the reliability of their ideas..." (281), it was our own governments who failed us by determining that it was ethical to violate the basic human rights of thousands

Get more content

Technology Is Harmful

Too Much Technology

Technology has taken a huge toll of importance in the lives of people now–a–days. However, a question arises. Is all of the technology that is being brought into our lives really more helpful or harmful? I feel that people are building too much of a dependence on technology and that it is harming society more than it is helping it. There are many negative effects of computer technology in our lives and what the dangers of having them in our lives are. The government stores many files of personal information about people all over the country in databases (Computers). This worries people about the criminals who might try to steal their personal information and use it...show more content...

It is also easier to bully via electronics than physically not only because stature and built do not matter when it comes to cyber bullying, but that most adolescents have their own personal computers and their parents are not constantly watching over them to prevent it from happening (School Violence, 2008). Cyber bullying leaves people in emotional, as well as, physical turmoil. This will cause emotional turmoil even though the messages can be deleted from the source does not mean that the intent of the messages doesn't stick. Even if a person deletes all the harmful evidence of what is said a person may never forget what is said in them. Most adolescents use the internet at least once a day. And most use it at home too so there really is no escape from the harm of cyber bullying unless you withdraw from using electronics altogether. Cyber bullying can cause such severe emotional pain it can lead to physical pain as well. Some people who are awfully cyber bullied begin to feel as though they are so worthless they will harm themselves or in some extreme cases kill themselves:

In the case of Tyler Clementi, 18, he killed himself by jumping off of the George Washington Bridge in New York. His college roommate secretly recorded him engaging in sexual activity with another person and tried to stream it over the web. His roommate then proceeded to tweet about the

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has become a classic in modern literature. Her tale is full of moral lessons that encompass a wide variety of subjects but one of the most prevalent is the theme of knowledge and its pursuit. Frankenstein, Walton, and the Monster all have an appetite for acquiring knowledge and actively pursue their perspective interests, but it soon turns to the obsessive and proves to be dangerous. Each of the character's desires demonstrates to be detrimental to them when no boundaries are established. Through the use of consequences, Shelley's Frankenstein shows that the relentless and obsessive pursuit of knowledge can lead to dangerous and disastrous situations.

The primary example for the search of knowledge that quickly turned obsessive is VictorFrankenstein. His profound interest for the pursuit of knowledge and the production of life quickly becomes obsessive, thinking of nothing but "the cause and generation of life" (Shelley 31). His primary virtue, his love for learning, quickly became obsessive. Frankenstein ignores his family and friends, and "seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit" (Shelley 33), becoming oppressed by his obsession, and failing to care for himself. His intense need to learn and expose all the secrets of nature drive him beyond all reason, clouding his judgment and compelling him forward even when his "human nature turned with loathing from" what he was attempting to do and create (Shelley 33).

Get more content