> Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is applied as technology.
I mostly disagree with this sentiment. If you're a nuclear physicist, and you publish a paper about the theoretical aspects of fission chain reactions, and realize that they may allow for good things, like nuclear power, and bad things, like nuclear weapons, you have an obligation to consider the consequences of how your research might be applied by others, do the cost-benefit calculation, and decide to publish, or keep your knowledge a secret[0].
Of course, in the vast majority of cases (GMOs, medical research, human intelligence, etc., knock yourself out) it's probably better to publish - the benefits far outweigh any costs. But I see no reason why this has to be universally, fundamentally true - maybe there are secrets of the universe too dangerous for publication - knowledge which, if made public, would predictably lead to great destruction.
[0]: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0207094 Leo Slizard is usually credited as the first to come up with the idea of weaponizing nuclear fission. Slizard was in favor of secrecy, Fermi was in favor of publication, and for a while, they kept some of their discoveries a secret. In the hindsight of history, this was probably not necessary, but at least they weighed the consequences and had the debate.
Of course, we may not want to have terrorists building atomic bombs, so some secrecy is prudent, but secrecy does not generally hinder: 1) Some bad people from accessing said information, now having monopoly, which may make matters even worse 2) Discovering the same thing independently - Yes, we may keep it secret, but that does not change the laws of physics, the exploitation potential is still there.
We crave power, both in the sense of ability and energy, and it seems to grow monotonically (Freeman Dyson proposed searching for efficient star-energy-capturing devices as a way to find ET life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere).
But I agree, it seems that it is not very easy to prevent new science to be discovered. We are a curious species, and even if we go back to the dark ages, even if we move up or down the knowledge scale randomly, this brownian movement will end up jumping too high, and giving too much power to someone.
So at least we should incorporate an element of respect to such power in our education, our ethics, and try to prevent it from being lost. In my opinion, this kind of thing is most efficiently managed through religion, but current religions do not advance very quickly nor are amenable to "improvements", whereas the idea of scientific religion, to us, now, seems abhorrent and oxymoronic. I believe this might change in the future, though. If science "just works" (and it is indistinguishable from magic), I could picture someone stripping out the "scientific inquiry and skepticism" part, and building a religion on top of the huge building of true scientific facts that we faithfully take for granted.
So in my opinion we have to focus on education. Sorry for the rambling :)
According to it "political conflict over environmental and technological risks to a struggle between adherents of competing ways of life associated with the group–grid scheme: an egalitarian, collectivist (“low grid”, “high group”) one, which gravitates toward fear of environmental disaster as a justification for restricting commercial behavior productive of inequality; and individualistic ("low group") and hierarchical ("high grid") ones, which resist claims of environmental risk in order to shield private orderings from interference, and to defend established commercial and governmental elites from subversive rebuke."
The media really aren't helping here. If 40 years ago 'being a scientist' was a great thing to aspire to as a kid nowadays you're more likely to hear the same thing about kids wanting to become lawyers or politicians.
Never mind that the lawyers and the politicians are more often than not the anti-pode of constructive contributions to society.
I've always felt that as a culture we see STEM degrees as more "real" or valuable than more social subjects (for better or worse), in sharp contrast to historical thinking. On top of that, TV series about science and mathematics (astronomy in particular) only seem to be becoming more common and popular.
Where exactly does this "PR problem" come in?
Then there is the global warming "debate". The anti Vaccination crap.
Also the last few years have seen surge in "Everything they said about eating fat / salt /alcohol was wrong".
OK, I have given examples of crap science reporting, but I think the public relate back to it that climate scientists are just after funding. Or that scientists are always wrong. Extrapolate a bit and you will get to where the average Joe is.
Maybe I feel a similarly way about certain religious people. Certainly in the States there seems to be some bug money in that. Its not too hard to see the public's perception of scientists as a mirror image of that.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharch...
From the summary:
The study shows that the UK public are as enthusiastic about science as they ever have been, with attitudes to science having come a long way over the past 25 years:
-More now agree that “it is important to know about science in my daily life” (72% agree, versus 57% in 1988).
-People are now more comfortable about the pace of change – just a third (34%, versus 49% in 1988) now agree that “science makes people’s lives change too fast”.
- A third (35%) still think that scientists adjust their findings to get the answers they want, and three-in-ten (29%) think scientific research is never or only occasionally checked by other scientists before being published.
- Half (51%) still say they hear and see too little about science.
- Seven-in-ten (69%) think that “scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think” and three-quarters (75%) think that “the Government should act in accordance with public concerns about science and technology”.
