CERN and creating knowledge

[greenie_breizh]

Granted, I am not known for my super scientific mind, but so far from what I've heard about the CERN and its LHC, all I can think is:
...we really should be spending our research money on other stuff.
...how much energy are they using just to run this thing?
...will we ever know where to stop and what are we doing with this knowledge?

The thing to me about scientific knowledge is very often it doesn't seem to be put into any kind of perspective. It's all knowledge for knowledge's sake, which arguably is cool, but the problem is that knowledge isn't created in a vaccuum and I wish we would think more seriously about the consequences of that, about the social context in which we come up with that knowledge and the meanings and uses that are going to be put onto it. I guess I have more examples that come to mind with genetics and bioengineering, but fuck knows nuclear research has blown up in our faces, too (but I guess not really our faces so it's all good).

I'm also slowly coming to wonder if knowledge for knowledge's sake in the sciences is all that good. I mean, scientific knowledge in itself isn't good or bad (though arguably depending on how much energy it demands you could also wonder if the means are worth the end). I guess it's just that the applications for that knowledge can be so wrong that it really makes me wonder if the pros outweigh the cons of just leaving some things unknown.


Yesterday my TA class was...interesting, to say the least, and I want to say a word about that, but first I have to take Mommy Cat to the vet to get spayed. She peed in the litter box overnight and I'm hoping this is going to be the end of that.

Comments

[shiraz_wine]

That's the thing though. Scientific research is done for knowledge's sake and not for anything else. Of course, a lot of forays into new areas of science is done because of social reasons (for example, cancer research or sustainability research), but the role of the scientist is just to seek out knowledge, not to dictate what should be done with the knowledge after the fact.

It may seem a little bit cold and there are clearly some cases in which scientists have regretted the uses of their research - most notably, the atomic bomb. However, if a scientist can think in that manner, it prevents him or her from twisting data to prove something that suits their own needs or foregone conclusions.

It's really up to society to decide what to do with that knowledge, and as we all know, society is often stupid and corrupt.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that I agree that scientists are not responsible for their discoveries and what we might do with them. I'm not sure we can hold them accountable per se, either, but the fact remains that you are creating knowledge in a context and it's too easy to say 'I didn't know what you guys would do with that!'... right now if you're helping locating genes that you know companies will patent and then use that to force farmers to use their seed every year, you can't just say you were just the scientist and the consequences have got nothing to do with you. You're part of society just like anybody else.

Not that we'll ever have that debate, but I really do think we should sit and think about the way in which we seek knowledge. And wonder to what extent we need to learn more in certain areas when we're lacking knowledge in fields that we should know more about. Basically it comes down to the fact that I sometimes wonder if knowledge for knowledge's sake is really a good concept or just an excuse that we use more and more to wash our hands from the consequences of what we create.

[shiraz_wine]

I guess I should clarify what I was trying to say!

I'm not claiming that scientists are not part of society; that would be silly. I'm saying that a person in the role of a scientist should be seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake. This is not to say that they don't or won't have a personal interest in the results of their research and what is done with it afterwards. But if the scientist is worried about those things during research, then they may purposefully or unintentionally skew their data to acheive their own ends.

I guess that was a little tangential to your point.

I personally believe that all knowledge is worth having. As you pointed out, knowledge is not in itself good or bad. So it's not the concept of knowledge for knowledge's sake that you're actually questioning, but the application of said gained knowledge. For example, it's not the fact that splitting an atom releases tons of energy that's problematic, but the fact that people then chose to use that knowledge to create a devastating bomb.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make is that acquisition of knowledge is not the true problem, but application of knowledge.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree the application of knowledge is more problematic than the acquisition of it, but I think I would argue that we should question how and what knowledge we acquire, too. I think to a certain extent the scientist should be worried about their personal interest in a particular research or what will be done with it, but possibly before he starts researching? It's not that I have answers or anything, just that I'm basically not sure all scientific knowledge is worth having, considering the price we can have to pay for that knowledge (in terms of costs to gain that knowledge and also in terms of what will be done with that knowledge afterwards).

[shiraz_wine]

I see what you're saying. But honestly, if one scientist backed out of a research project because of those reasons, another scientist would probably be found to take his or her place. It's the reality of scientists being people too and therefore subject to the same vices as anyone else, specifically greed.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

That seems to be a very slippery slope - I mean, that sounds a lot like what someone could say if they got themselves tangled up in crimes against humanity, like, well, someone would have tortured/killed/maimed anyway... even without that extreme comparison, just because there are people ready to do unethical things doesn't absolve you from doing them, too, y'know?

[shiraz_wine]

Yes, it is a very slippery slope. But that's the reality of what occurs all the time. I'm not saying that it's a valid argument, just pointing out that people do use that argument to justify their actions. It's well and good to say 'people should stop and think before they do something that can be harmful' but there are people who do stop and think and do it anyway.

Let's take a milder example. Most adults know that littering is bad. And yet I watch people drop containers in the street or throw things out their car window without a thought as to the future consequences. There are people out there who just don't care, because if it's one thing that people are good at, it's rationalizing. 'Someone else will get it' and they go about their merry lives.

[(Anonymous)]

Unfortunately, in fundamental research, it is often hard to predict the applications a given research can have. If we take the example of nuclear research, it is obvious that it lead to the creation of a weapon that is really devastating, and in particular that is mainly aimed at civilians. However, it also has a lot of applications in medical science, for example in medical imagery and cancer therapy. I do not think that the scientists who started exploring the structure of the atom nucleus foresaw any of these consequences. Perhaps they were aware, after some time, of the fact that they had discovered a new source of energy. Almost any kind of energy can be both creative and devastating...

Another point about fundamental research is that it usually takes a long time, often several decades if not several hundred years, for applications to appear. So the scientists involved in it are not only often unable to foresee, but also often unable to control the consequences of their research. That is what can make it dangerous.

However, all the things I have mentioned do not, in my opinion, free the researchers of their responsibility. I think a researcher should keep from exploring a given area if s/he fears it will have dangerous applications. Years ago I decided I would not study biology, in spite of my love for the subject, because I was not interested in biopharmaceutical and biomedical research and most of the other research done in biology nowadays has ethical consequences I do not feel comfortable with. Ethical problems is also one of the (many) reasons why I'm giving up my engineering studies. I believe everybody (perhaps make an exception for insane people and kids) should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Researchers have a huge influence on today's world. That gives them a huge responsibility.

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

Oups, that was me.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

Hi Shiraz_wine, I beg to differ :)

There exist several perspectives on scientific endeavor. If it is true that lots of scientists put forward the ideal of «research for knowledge's sake and not for anything else», lest they would mire their discoveries with subjectivity. However, they are wrong on both counts.

1 - On an practical level, they are wrong in believing that they can totally detach themselves from subjectivity and reach a true objective standpoint.

2 - On a fundamental level, they are also wrong in thinking that seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake emanates from a value free position.

More and more, research has to submit to ethical guidelines. Not that it is perfect. Far from it. I suspect - I am speculating here and need to confirm it - that scientists who are not specializing in social sciences will have less of a grasp of the social consequences some experiments can have.

Scientists are not disembodied truth seekers, they are human beings who make choices. And those choices often are influenced by their cultural upbringing. It reflects itself not only in how research is conducted, but also in the selection of the very subject matters and questions that they deem worthwile to explore.

Now, I am not saying that anything goes nor am I spiralling into that relativistic «truth» sucking blackhole. I consider it important to be as objective as possible when seeking knowledge, but I also deem it crucial not to blind ourselves with the pretense of true objectivity - both on a practical and fundamental level.

I personaly am an anthropologist/sociologist. I adhere to a critical standpoint. That is I seek knowledge for emancipation's sake. However, my subjective, human position does not mean I do not strive to be as objective as possible when gathering data. For instance, my thesis consisted in exploring adolescent boys' perspectives on gay men (and, by extension, women). Even though I'm a lesbian, I was ready to hear everything. Actually, not only did I want them to be honest, but I *needed* them to be so. Knowing what the «real» obstacles are to lgbt emancipation is crucial. There is no point in blinding oneself, lest we come up with deficient solutions.

- Your anarchist scholar ;)

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

You're always so much more articulate than I am. ^^

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

Hey, give yourself some chance! ;)

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Well, I think I have good instincts, I'm just not quite at the stage where I can articulate ideas as well as you can. I also don't have anywhere near as many references. *g* But that'll come! Hopefully. ;)

Oups, a mistake!

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

This sentence:
If it is true that lots of scientists put forward the ideal of «research for knowledge's sake and not for anything else», lest they would mire their discoveries with subjectivity.

Should read like without the «if». Like this:
It is true that lots of scientists put forward the ideal of «research for knowledge's sake and not for anything else», lest they would mire their discoveries with subjectivity.

Ahhhh. Much better :)

[shiraz_wine]

I wasn't trying to say that scientists exist in a vacuum and that they won't have a vested interest in the results of their research, but just that they shouldn't let those interests get in the way during research.

As I wrote up above, I don't think the concept of 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' is a bad concept and in fact, is crucial for good research to happen. However, once the research is done and the results are discovered, then the application of that research should be taken very seriously. Scientists can recommend what should be done with their research, but should they be held responsible if their results are used by someone else to create something that could be considered reprehensible?

To make an extreme example (since I don't know the specifics of your research), what if someone took the results of your research to create anti-gay programs in order to influence adolescent boys' perspectives of gay men, similar to gay conversion programs? That quite obviously goes against what you're gathering the data to do, but should you still be held responsible?

I could be quite possibly muddying up my thoughts (I tend to be better at talking things out) but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

I see two problems with your position. One has to do with responsibility and the other with criteria for good research.

1) What motivates you to put «truth» above consequence? This is a value-based decision that you and other «knowledge for the sake of knowledge» scientists cannot justify objectively. Also, even though scientists cannot be always responsible for the choices other people are making when they appropriate and distort knowledge to their own ends, that does not absolve them of the impacts of their own decisions. Actually, saying «They can’t be doing something bad because others are going to do bad things anyways» is morally shaky. I understand we should be wary of stopping research for fear people might distort it. However, there are things that are more easily distortable than others. If I’m doing anti-gay research, it is directly bad, and far more easy to recuperate. But if I’m doing research that is set in an emancipatory goal, it is harder for it to be distorted, and easier for the distortion to be pointed out and contested. I agree that some autonomy in research can be fruitful (at least in the social sciences), because if it was always directed by political interests, we might never be able to direct a critical eye at our own society. However, it is dangerous – and preposterous – to reject any responsibility in the scientific choices we are making. In doing so, we are setting ourselves above the rest of society. Others would remain responsible, whereas we would entitle ourselves not to be.

2)While I don’t think that fundamental research is inherently and always bad, I think it is highly problematic to see the influence of subjectivity only in research procedures. You say: «the concept of 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' (…), is crucial for good research to happen». Nope. This is a positivistic claim (I invite you to read Kuhn «The structure of scientific revolutions» to know more about this). When we blind ourselves to think our subjectivity can be erased by pretending we are doing research only for research’s sake, we are bound to not see the role our subjectivity can have when we are collecting data. Our subjectivity manifests itself from the very moment we decide «truth» is more important than consequence. It manifests itself in the themes we deem more worthwhile and interesting to explore. It manifests in the research questions we select and in the way we phrase them. What is, in fact, crucial for good research to happen is to be aware of where our subjective biases are in play or more bound to appear (and letting our readers know!), so as to put our data in perspective.

Say a scientist decides to explore how we could «correct homosexuality». Is he just seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Well, good chances are he would put it that way. Because that sort of thing has happened over, and over, and over again. Scientists who set themselves to understand «the races» and organize them into hierarchies with the White race on top where all into objectivity. They really were deeply convinced they were seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Hell, these were the positivist’ heydays.

Deciding to investigate the ways we could «correct homosexuality» not only stems from a subjective viewpoint that problematises non-heterosexuality (because of course, it would never occur to the scientist or to his colleagues to investigate how we could «correct heterosexuality»), but also has serious social impacts. We could not just absolve a person from making such a research decision because that person happens to be a scientist.

Now I really need to go back to work! :)

[shiraz_wine]

I am not placing truth above consequence; I just think that the pursuit of knowledge is not the root of the issue here. Stopping research because of fear of its ultimate application will not solve anything; it will only stagnate progress. However, making better decisions about how research is used to progress us as a people will have an effect.

I have to take issue with the examples you use to try to prove your points. It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad." From your pro-gay perspective, these research topics are obviously cause for alarm. However, to someone who is anti-gay, the goal of your research would cause heart palpitations as well.

The act of investigating these topics is not a bad thing. To take your correcting homosexuality example, researchers are currently trying to figure out the biological basis of homosexuality. Obviously, their hypothesis includes the bias that somehow homosexuality is abnormal, since there is no research aimed towards discovering the biological basis of heterosexuality. They've found genes that may have a link to homosexuality - this is pure knowledge. However, this discovery has re-opened the discussion of whether homosexuality is innate or a choice and paved the way for pro-gay activists to declare that there's scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice. These are the consequences of initially heterosexist research and clearly, something that anti-gay activists aren't too thrilled about. In this case, if the initial research hadn't been done, regardless of its motivation, the consequences also wouldn't have occurred.

As my teacher quoted in my Statistics class, "Statistics don't lie. People do." Similarly, data doesn't lie, people do. I believe that all knowledge is worth having, but as with anything, caution should be undertaken. Ethical guidelines should be adhered to. Decisions regarding the implications of the research should be carefully considered.

I have to admit, when I talk about research, I'm mainly talking about academic research. When money gets involved, such as in military and pharmaceutical research, ethics seem to fly straight out of the window.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

«I am not placing truth above consequence; I just think that the pursuit of knowledge is not the root of the issue here».

This contradicts your previous statement: «Scientific research is done for knowledge's sake and not for anything else». And as much as you displace the concern for truth-seeking towards a concern for progress-seeking, those two are part of the same construct. «Progress»-seeking is a western values based endeavour that translate into thinking constant technological discovery and implementation, constant production, power-serving knowledge (because the trope of objectivity serves dominant standpoints (Young, 1990)) are inherently *good*.

«I have to take issue with the examples you use to try to prove your points. It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad." From your pro-gay perspective, these research topics are obviously cause for alarm. However, to someone who is anti-gay, the goal of your research would cause heart palpitations as well.»

Yep, anti-gay research inherently is «bad». I consider it legitimate to have values direct the angles of my research. And I have the honesty to admit it and to point where they are. And yes, I consider my position more legitimate than the ones anti-gay folks adopt. Why, because I am a human being who believes in inclusion. You imply that the act of researching is neutral. It is not. That data is also neutral. It is not. It is selected and/or couched in terms that are value based. And you haven’t answered to the fact that all searchers who claim to be objective are not. Everyone, unconsciously, is selecting topics according to personal investments. And now, add this to the fact that White, heterosexual males searchers are over-represented and over-funded in academia (by over-represented white, heterosexual male research agency funders who get to select what research projects are more «important») because of the specific dynamics of historical and current imperialism, and you have a very dangerous cocktail on your hands. Whites, males and heterosexuals have more say in the direction our research is going – without the global population being consulted in any way.

You claim that values should not have a say in the research topic we are selecting. However, I am pretty certain you would object to research that is aimed at measuring how long human beings can survive when left in cold water, like nazi doctors did on concentration camp inmates – all this in a context where no other way of experimentation was possible to obtain such data. If you are ready to say that there is, here, a limit on the research topic that should be researched, then you are ready to admit that, per se, there can be limits on some research topics.

«The act of investigating these topics is not a bad thing.»

Even though non-scholars are not privy to everything that is happening on in our spheres, they regularly get a glimpse of what research angles are adopted. And that sends them messages. The marked emphasis on racial and sex intelligence and the way these were couched were sending the message that there was something problematic with being a woman and being non-White. The marked emphasis on the «origins of homosexuality» (and not on sexual orientation in general, that is, including heterosexuality) sends the message there is something wrong with homosexuality, whereas there is nothing problematic with heterosexuality or no worthwhile knowledge to be gleaned from studying it.

«They've found genes that may have a link to homosexuality - this is pure knowledge.»

Actually they haven’t. The research claiming so has been «debunked». But ok, let’s say they have for the sake of the argument.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

«However, this discovery has re-opened the discussion of whether homosexuality is innate or a choice and paved the way for pro-gay activists to declare that there's scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice. These are the consequences of initially heterosexist research and clearly, something that anti-gay activists aren't too thrilled about.»

Granted, some are not perfectly thrilled, but others have already developed their counter-argument. Being genetically indisposed (that is, gay), they say, would not exempt them from guilt if they indulge in same-sex acts. They would just be like alcoholics who need to hold their drinking problem in check. And actually, this is pretty much the stance of the Catholic Church, which is nowhere near to budge on this matter. Also, the no-choice argument, in the long run, is a faulty one. It is an appeal to pity. Or can easily be understood as such. People can still consider you inferior. They can also, alternatively, decide to abort kids who have gay gene(s) (if they have nothing against abortion – which is the case of some anti-gay folks). And finally, nothing prevents researchers from embarking on further research that would provide gene therapy – or a «correction» to homosexuality.

Research topic selection, I insist, is not neutral. And responsibility not only rests on how people react to research results. Scholars have power and they/we know we have (and more so those who belong to dominant groups). Their/our decisions and inclinations have social impact. And pretending they/we are not part of society is at best a cognitive disjunction, at worse a pretentious value-based decision to consider we are entitled to research anything that pleases us – because, hey, we believe in «progress» and are entitled to define it as we like -, regardless of social consequences.

«As my teacher quoted in my Statistics class, "Statistics don't lie. People do." Similarly, data doesn't lie, people do.»

Well obviously, your teacher is caught up in a positivistic outlook. Although I do not consider we should discard all statistics, and although I take issue with people who offhandedly dismiss them by saying «well, you can make statistics say anything», I’m stressing this: statistics are not neutral. They are not pure data that give us a glimpse of «Reality» with an R. Take poverty, for example. We may select variables to measure poverty and have results that show a very high internal coherence. In relation to the frame of mind we have selected when defining poverty, our statistics/results may be highly reliable and highly valid. And we may strut about, confident in our objectivity because hey, we uncovered real, hard data applying strict discipline to data gathering. However, in being so blinded in our positivist outlook and our objectivity confidence, we totally miss the fact that our very definition of poverty, and hence the variables we select to measure it, are value-based. So what is it, do we measure poverty in absolute terms, à la Rowntree (1901), or in relative terms, à la Townsend (1952), or in terms of access to capabilities, à la Sen (1983)?

«I believe that all knowledge is worth having, but as with anything, caution should be undertaken. Ethical guidelines should be adhered to. Decisions regarding the implications of the research should be carefully considered.»

Ethical guidelines, yes. But why not refraining from embarking in some specific research endeavours alltogether? That reeks of «I’m gonna do it anyways, regardless of what objections we receive».

«I have to admit, when I talk about research, I'm mainly talking about academic research. When money gets involved, such as in military and pharmaceutical research, ethics seem to fly straight out of the window.»

Academic research is also dependant on funding. Funding that can come from apparently tame research agencies (but whose members are nonetheless a reflection of the power dynamics I was mentioning earlier), but also from doubtful sources like pharmaceutical companies or corporations. We depend on this money, and are vulnerable to the vested interests of those who provide it.

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

Now, with all of that said, does that mean that I advocate a stop on researches that draw some critics? No. I’m not into pandering to whatever mainstream political interest there is. However, we do have to be extremely careful. And yes, sometimes we may consider the option of not exploring a given field.

Note: I am a teacher. And I happen to teach methodology at the university. Which makes me very familiar about epistemological, ontological and ethical debates. Of course, this debate is something I am very passionate about. However, it unfortunately takes of my worktime ;) So, if you want to consult some of my reading material, I would be happy to oblige.

[shiraz_wine]

I understand that this is taking up your worktime, so I'll just say this:

We may differ on several issues but our viewpoints do converge on this one point - people should be very cautious about how research is conducted.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad."

Would you argue then that research looking at proving that some races are inferior to others is the same as research that seeks to show all races are "equal"? That both would be, from a scientific point of view, equally valuable and valid? (That's an actual question, not a rhetoric one, btw :)

[shiraz_wine]

Yes, they're both equally valid research, if conducted correctly so that the data is not skewed based on the initial hypothesis.

To do research, you have to start out with an initial hypothesis. So say that someone wanted to prove that some races are inferior to others. That's the initial hypothesis. Then they conduct the research. The results can either support or nullify their initial hypothesis. Therefore, pursuing that line of research is not inherently bad because the results could very well show that all the races are "equal."

As an aside, you picked a very vague question, since then you would have to define equality and inferiority. In general, blacks are poorer than whites; does that make them inferior? Whites have higher rates of skin cancer than blacks; does that make them inferior?

What I'm trying to get at is that if you're a good scientist, your initial hypothesis and/or biases will ultimately not matter. If you conduct the research well, your results will speak for themselves. Plus, now we have so many peer review procedures in place before and after someone gets published, that it's rather difficult for someone else not to notice that your research is flawed in some capacity.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

En fait, je crois que ma question bête sur cette expérience, c'est: pourquoi c'est important de comprendre l'origine de l'univers? Qu'est ce que ce savoir va nous apporter, comment va-t-il nous aider? Et est ce que la réponse en vaut la possible chandelle, y compris les coûts (énergétique et autres) et les applications annexes qui ne seront peut-être pas aussi bénéfiques qu'on aime le penser? (Je suis très, très douteuse à l'égard des technologies nucléaires et je l'admets.)

[fan-elune.livejournal.com]

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Because Shakespeare's got it all right.

Incidentally, I was just thinking about that yesterday while listening to the Torchwood radio episode. Captain Jack goes on a rant about why humans are teh shit and it's all about how we keep looking for answers, without even necessarily knowing the questions, and yet we still keep on looking. And the whole episode pretty much makes your point for you. Scientific experiment for knowledge's sake that lets something through into our world and it's up to Torchwood to save the day. Pretty basic, but it definitely goes in the same direction as you, no matter what Jack has to say about how admirable our quest for answers is.

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

If you have some time (which I know you don't, but...) you should watch or read the play "The plysicists" by Dürenmatt. It's really about the theme that's been debated here, the responsibility of the researcher for the consequence of his research (and of the human being for the consequences of his actions, in that case the murders, but I'm not going to write any spoilers).

[pee-wai.livejournal.com]

That's a very interesting debate but it's saturday and it's 08:52 so I will just point out that it's funny you chose to put a icon from the West Wing because there's an episode where Toby debates with a scientist about giving money for a superconducting supercollider (and then refuses)!

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

Reading PhD I found that they have a storyline about the CERN. So of course it's PhD, but as far as I know the information in there is pretty accurate and at least it's a fun way of presenting it. So you might want to check it out (and do further research on any information you find interesting to make sure it really is accurate.)

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I follow PhD so I've been reading that storyline. :) It is interesting, to the extent that this isn't a topic I'm particularly interested in, but my problem with the CERN and its LHC isn't that it's useless, anyway. ;)