How do we control science?

Question

We are in the age of science. Before 0 B.C. was the age of kings. Take your pick: Alexander the Great, Julius Cesaer, Hannibal, Cersus. They had the most dominant effects on the human race, but I feel democracy has some what put a limit on the power of leaders today.

From 1 A.D. to 1000 A.D. was the age of religion. Christ and Mohammed were the most dominant in this era. However, freedom of religion in many countries has put something of a break on religion being the dominant form in its affect on humans.

We are now in the age of science: 1000 AD to present. The most dominant people being Isaac Newton and Einstein, but there are many others.

With the first two groups, we still have leaders and religions, but society has been able to put limits on them so they do run amock. But how do we put a check on science? Each nation must push its science as hard as it can to keep up with the next nation. I could do without the atomic bomb. How do we control science?

Answer 1

Control science? Everyday new discoveries are made to change our lives, some good, some bad.

If you control science you could hold back a discovery that would change our world. Say like a cure for cancer or the next death weapon.

I'd prefer to gamble and science run amok.

Answer 2

Let us go back to the old question, is fire a tool or destroyer? We all know that we can use it to cook, keep us warm, etc. and can burn something. Is it the fault of fire? Of course not. same is the case with any tool we have. science is a newer tool, to be handled carefully. In spite of all his objections, Einstein was not able to stop scientists from using his famous equation E=MC2 for making atom bomb. So, let us all use science as the latest tool and not us weapon. We may have to use our ethics to do so, which can be said as part of religion, though atheists object.

So, let the world leaders have some ethics not to use science for destroction. It is an odd combination of leaders, religion & science. We have to have the awareness about the subject and spread it to everybody to control science.

Answer 3

Actually, science controls itself very well. In the orthodox view of science, the only motivation for scientists to do work is to achieve recognition by publishing papers. Even monetary compensation is secondary to the acknowledgement of peers. As such, the only scientists who become successful are the ones that most peers agree are doing notable, important work. You would be perhaps surprised to know that most working scientists are not developing weapons of mass destruction. They are working on very small problems at a time -- for example, how to get more "blue" to show up in an LCD screen. The peer review process is an effective control of science for the same reason that democracy is an effective system of government -- it assures that only the mainstream types of science get done.

You mention that you could do without the atom bomb. But at the time, the atom bomb was considered necessary to the survival of the united states. It's very existence was supposed to act as a control, so that the very threat of using an atomb bomb acts as a deterrent. At the time, proponents argued that merely using the threat of mass destruction is preferable to mass modern warfare. The experiences of nations participating in WWI and WWII was that modern war, in which bombs and guns serve to mercilessly kill at a distance, it a horrific tragedy that needed to be avoided at all costs. In their view, having scientists develop the atom bomb was right and proper. It was only after the bomb was actually used that it was considered a mistake. As they say, hindsight is 20-20.

The development of the atom bomb is one instance in which the orthodox peer-review system of science failed to work. That is because here, the atom bomb was developed in secret, without the benefit of peer review. Other occasions when the peer review system fails is when scientists develop subjects that their companies want them to develop. In this way, they often work outside the peer review system, since they may not publish their results, or if they do, they will alter them to be made acceptable. Here, it is money that is the crime.

So you ask how are we to control science, but I ask, how are we to control secretive governments and greedy corporations? For that is where the real problems lie.

Answer 4

There are many anti-proliferation treaties & conventions to take care of that. Science has gifted us with many a marvel.The +ve side outshines the -ve one.
I know nuclear weapons are dangerous, but in 2day's scenario, can a nation do without it??????

Answer 5

Maybe it's science that controls us.