The world is currently in a golden age of science. Science and technology have been progressing at a pace never before seen in the history of humanity and many researchers are increasingly being respected and revered as the general public becomes aware of the beneficial impacts their discoveries have brought them. However, many have questioned if science is moving too fast for humanity’s own good, that the cons these “advancements” bring outweigh its pros, and that limits how and what scientists can research should be implemented and enforced. While scientific progress has indeed encountered many a hiccup along its journey, its robustness of information generation and the iniquitousness and commonality of its implementation are far more reliable and should not be hindered by artificial balls and chains.
Firstly, the reliability and robustness if the scientific method to generate knowledge if the surrounding world means that limitations would only hamper the pursuit of truth. In short, the scientific method works by making an assumption, testing the assumption, and consequently drawing a conclusion from the experiment. This repeated process of trial and error means that the knowledge of today can only be improved further and never move backwards. Let us take a look at the development of the theory of gravity. Plato initially said that heavy objects like stone wanted to go back the Earth and thus accelerated downwards. Galileo performed his famous experiment at the Leaning Tower of Pisa when he demonstrated items of different masses accelerated at the same speed a millennia later. Newton then came up with the idea that this attraction affected even celestial bodies and came up with equations to describe their motion, the refinement of which is taught in schools today. The advancement of universal truths is possible thanks to the near infallibility of the scientific method which ensures that empirical science speaks on the truth for the sole benefit of humanity and thus needs no restriction.
Secondly, limitations hamper the growth of scientific knowledge and delays the potential beneficial technologies science can provide. No one can refute the claim that humanity has only risen up to this point thanks to human innovation and scientific progress. The 3 Industrial Revolutions of Steam, Green and Cyber were only possible thanks to the unrelenting and unyielding locomotive of research and these revolutions have brought many tangible results to the table of humanity. Large assembly lines allow for the cheap and easy provision of goods; fertilizer allows for massive quantities of food to be grown and the internet has accelerated learning and the exchange of information to the realm of light speed. When restrictions are placed on science, it only serves to delay the inevitable and push any possible solution to society’s woes further and further away. When Galileo first proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Church vehemently refuted his idea due to the established belief that at the time of the contrary. The Church even threatened to execute Galileo as a heretic if he did not take back his ‘claims’. Galileo had no choice but to agree, making one final punch for science when he muttered, “yet it moves…” as he was removed from the trial. The knowledge and its supporting evidence were kept a secret until his death a decade later and caused a surge in astronomy when it was published by his nephew. Today the field of astronomy has brought us many conveniences and creature comforts with GPS, infrared technology and streaming. So it is clear that limitations only serve as a temporary barrier to progress and would be a waste for humanity.
Lastly, the development of new technologies has lessened the impact of numerous social problems and around the world. Many of the world’s nations are grappling with endemic social and political issues such as disease, food security and potable water and these are precisely the kinds of problems science has the ability to defeat being a silver bullet. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has released the Water Book, a book whose pages are made of filtration paper in order to create more drinkable water. Additionally, there is a recent development of a water filtration packet, a packet filled with powder that has the ability to separate dirt and potable water that its produces is now distributing for free. The issues brought about by poverty that many less-developed nations are dealing with can be combated and potentially eradicated by the provision of technology.
However, while technology can battle against the effects of social issues like poverty, it does not strike at the root cause and in fact may exacerbate it instead. The wealth gap is brought about by many factors but one of the main reasons is technology. Those who have unrestricted access to technology are usually the ones who have the capital to exploit it, allowing them to develop it for their own benefit and personal gain. If the technology is then commodified, the company can even charge exorbitant prices for it., causing the entrepreneurs to become richer and its consumers to become poorer, driving out the middle class and strengthening the stranglehold of the 1% has on the economy. Amazon, whose CEO Jeff Bezos was once the world’s richest man, utilises technology to exploit and replace its workers. In its warehouses, hundreds of workers are competing with automated robots for efficiency, an uphill battle. Both are tasked with moving packages across football fields worth of space, organising them and subsequently loading them onto trucks. This competition and the fear of losing their jobs have forced employees to take no toilet breaks, some even urinating in bottles, in order to remain on par with these robots. When they eventually fall behind, human employees are then fired while Amazon looks onward to its own economic growth. So, technology cannot solve the main causes of many social issues and instead perpetuate them, thus requiring strict controls in order to allow all strata of society to benefit from technology instead of just the very top.
Secondly, in the publish or perish culture of today’s academia, the truthfulness of the scientist himself has come into question. Academia in the modern world is cut-throat and competitive, with limited funding grants and many projects that need to be funded. Many universities then use the resume of the scientist participating in research to determine its level of funding, consequently leading to some dishonest scientists falsifying results to publish papers, gain funding and earn international recognition. A Japanese scientist falsified her data on stem cells research to show positive results, making her name well known within the scientific community. However, after similar independent peer testing found it impossible to replicate her results, the veracity of her information was called into question. Her falsification came to light and she was subsequently stripped of her credentials. With the scientific community prizing publication above all else, it incentives such unethical behaviour and causes many to believe that strict regulation and better peer testing should be enforced.
Thirdly, scientific progress leads to ethical quandaries, dividing the community and thus needs controls to prevent civil unrest. Now advancements in technology bring what was once considered fiction into the realm of reality, causing many to grapple with the realization that others have different moral views than them. Recent developments in chemicals have allowed for the discovery and creation of euthanasia drugs, ones that can put a person to rest without any suffering. While many governments restrict its usage and only one, Sweden allowing foreigners to undergo it, the general population is still torn by this choice. Should the weak and frail be hooked up to machines and cooped up in hospitals to survive, or should they be granted the sweet release of death? Everyone has their own answer which can lead to protests if governments do not enforce strict regulation of it.
Lastly, whist science seeks to
discover the truth of the world, certain aspects are not yet complete causing
some to implement hasty technologies that may negatively impact them in the
long run, thus requiring legislation to reduce the impact. The scientific
method is the gradual improvement of humanity’s knowledge, so at times certain
parts are not fully understood. When technologies using such knowledge are
implemented, it is a gable to see if the total pros outweigh the cons. An
example of where humanity lost this gamble is the adoption of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs). When they were discovered, CFCs had many useful properties, being inert
and good insulators of heat, and were used everywhere from spray cans to
fridges. However, it was later discovered that CFCs damaged the ozone layer and
that there was already a large hole above Antarctica letting UV light through.
In response, the UN immediately signed the Montreal Protocol where CFCs were
banned and companies producing them like DuPont and Imperial Chemicals were
forced by legislation to develop other alternatives. The hasty implementation
of unknown technology should be a controlled gamble and science should be reined
in to limit and prevent permanent damage to humanity.
In conclusion, whilst science and tech seem to bring about many social and environmental problems when hastily and brazenly implemented, the robustness of its knowledge generation system and the reliance of modern society on its continuous development means that growth of science should not be constrained.
