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

[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.