What Science Can Do :: Science Scientific Papers

What Science Can Do I argue that 'we' the public of the United States of America, do not have an exaggerated view of what science can do. To support this claim I have compared and contrasted two articles: Enemies of Promise and The Hazards of Science. Both articles cover the topic of scientific research. Both authors are accredited scientists in their own right, and are excellent examples to cite for my thesis which I believe very strongly in. Although, I disagree with some of the conclusions made in the articles, I neverless hold both authors in very high regard. Professor of microbiology and Nobel Prize winner, J. Michael Bishop continually makes the statement in his article, Enemies of Promise, that the public has exaggerated and unrealistic expectations as to what science can do; Just as physician-author Lewis Thomas asks in his article, The Hazards of Science, "are there some things in science we should not be learning about?" (238). These men both have relevant opinions about science today. I can not say that they agree with each other because their articles are structured differently. Bishop makes arguments for science while stating it's limitations; and Thomas highlights some of sciences' achievements while questioning how far science should go. In discussing the topic of science, albeit from different frameworks, they touch upon some of the same topics. Bishop alleges that, "Science, is not the exclusive source of knowledge about human existence." (256). Then sites Thomas as saying that science is "the best way to learn how the world works." As Bishop cites Thomas to make his point, they both obviously agree with this statement. However, Thomas questions the lengths that science should go to while Bishop does not. Lewis Thomas asks the central question, "are there some kinds of information leading to some sorts of knowledge that human beings are really better off not having? Is there a limit to scientific inquiry not set by what is knowable but by what we ought to be knowing? Should we stop short of learning about some things, for fear of what we, or someone, will do with the knowledge?" (237). The author then answers his own questions: No, but he qualifies his answer by stating that it is an intuitive response that he is incapable of reasoning through. I too believe that we should not place limitations on science, while admitting that it is also an intuitive response.