In the "The Commissar of Soviet Biology" section of the book starting on page 219, Carroll describes how the Soviet scientist and political manipulator T. D. Lysenko. This section shows how Lysenko used propaganda and sensationalism to promote scientific discoveries (or falsely represented discoveries) that supported Soviet ideology and needs (such as saying a certain pea crop could survive the winter, but only tested it during one winter which was surprisingly mild).
Expound on this idea of censorship of science by finding a historical example of the stifling or the "editing" science in the United States for ideological or political purposes. Give a summary of what occurred and give your opinion on the events that transpired.
Next, find a historical example where ideological and political forces aided scientific research in the United States. Give a summary of what occurred and give your opinion on the event.
Finally, say whether or not you believe that ideological and political concerns should have an impact on science, along with whether or not the government should be involved with science. Why do you believe this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice prompt, Goone.
ReplyDeleteThe US Government stifling science:
Stem cells are cells characterized as having the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division and differentiating into a diverse range of specialized cell types. Stem cells can now be grown and transformed into specialized cells with characteristics consistent with cells of various tissues such as muscles or nerves through cell culture.
Former President George W. Bush signed an executive order (2001-2006) that restricted federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. Through the executive order, Bush drastically limited further research on stem cells, limiting it only to what was already understood. George W. Bush also TWICE VETOED the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Bill, which would allow federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo, once in 2005, and another in 2007.
Stem cells have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell, and as such, they offer development of medical treatments for a wide range of conditions. Treatments that have been proposed include treatment for physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases. Further treatments using stem cells could potentially be developed thanks to their ability to repair extensive tissue damage. However, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the pro-life movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life.
Pro-life supporters are so vehemently against the destruction of a tiny embryo, which is their definition of murder. However, it is those same pro-life supporters that will dig into a slab of beef, which was cut from the dead carcass of a cow. And for the true "pro-life" supporters that embrace animal rigts, when will their absurd advocacies cease? Will they not live in a wooden house because the wood was the home to birds and insects? Will they not use the subway because the subway stations used to be where animals burrowed? And it is these pro-life supporters that cry out when a tiny embryo, which is to be aborted anyway, is used for stem cell research...it is an hypocrisy indeed.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue.The social, economic and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat are far greater than the costs associated with the destruction of embryos. The destruction of 1 embryo can save the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands!!!
Embryos are not equivalent to human life, because are incapable of surviving outside the womb. There is a potential FOR life, but embryos are not life.
Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue; making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell.
And WHY NOT use an embryo slated for destruction anyway. Embryos that are to be aborted are only one such example. In vitro fertilization generates large numbers of unused embryos (70,000 in Australia alone). Why not use these embryos?
Stem cell researcher are not murderers, as "pro-life" supporters say. They simply seek to utilize what is useless and wasted to save lives.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
The US Government supporting science:
Due to fears during the 1930s that Nazi Germans were creating a nuclear weapon, the Manhattan Project was a project conducted during World War II by the United States to develop the first nuclear weapon. The Manhattan Project was active from 1942 to 1946. Plenty of funds were furnished by the United States government, and multiple sites for nuclear research were set up, and as such, the Manhattan Project created the first nuclear bombs, and the first human-engineered nuclear detonation.
I greatly dislike the Manhattan project, or any nuclear research for the production of bombs. The result of the production of atomic bombs was the dropping of the bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On August 6, 1945 at 8:15 AM, an atomic bomb lit the skies of Hiroshima, killing more than one third of the 343,000 city population. Most of the other two thirds of the population not immediately decimated by the bomb encountered severe reactions to the nuclear debris, including severe burns, an 86% loss of white blood cells, as well as 104* F body temperatures, and excessive vomitting. I now reflect at what happened, at the havoc that has been wrought in the city of Hiroshima, and I cry tears of black blood. I cry for the mass destruction, of thousands, the leveling of houses, the razing of schools. Such raw "atomic power" should be in the hands of no country, and is truly a testament that some things are not meant to be discovered. Although the nuclear bomb was dropped to force the Japanese to surrender, it is simple common sense to know that it is never a "military necessity" to kill a hundred thousand people. Although the atomic bomb was a means to avoid more war, and a method by which to force Japan's immediate surrender, the destruction and death that took place due to the dropping of the bomb is unexplainable. I frown upon scientific research that generates so much death and demolition.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Comclusion:
Ideological and political concerns should have an impact on science, because if no limit were set, then our study and knowledge would be our doom. However, the government should be very careful and cautious when intervening with science. The government should heavily consult with scientists and researchers, and amass an in-depth of understanding of what is taking place before "picking a side" to either banning or supporting research. Supporting dangerous research and banning valuable ones is foolish. The government should be cognizant of all facets of research before making a decision.
The U.S has grappled with the issue of teaching in schools for since the 19th century. Originally evolution was completely omitted from public school curriculums in most states. However during the turn of the century, when evolution began to garner major support, many schools introduced evolution into science classes. Post World War I, in lieu of the Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy, many states returned to a strictly religious curriculum rather than reconciling bible teachings with evolution. By 1925, fifteen states would enact laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in school. It is clear that this censorship of science was reactionary to the strides science was making in the beginning of the 20th century. People were not only religiously motivated but also afraid of change.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people do have the right to hold strongly to their beliefs be they unscientific or not but the class room is a place for free learning. A society cannot progress and develop if knowledge cannot be spread. We are lucky that the states banning the teaching of evolution have repealed those laws.
On the other hand, the U.S during the Cold War took great strides to further science. After the launch of Sputnik, America feared that it had fallen behind in the technology race. Thus the U.S government greatly increased funding in math and sciences education through the National Defense Education Act in hopes to produce the scientists U.S needed to bridge the missile gap between America and the USSR. The government also established NASA which would greatly expand the scientific body of knowledge in the fields of physics and engineering. Hoping to capture a new market in wake of Sputnik generated hysteria, companies like Lockheed Martin also began investing into the science and creating many job opportunities for scientists. The Cold war made the science a far more stable and economically favorable career choice. I believe these actions by the government and the private sector were great methods of increasing interest in the sciences and furthering research.
I am greatly in favor of the type government spending for the sciences that took place in the cold war. Government organizations and companies spent far more on the sciences during the cold war than now and thus interest in the sciences was greater then. In those days many of the brightest students applied for science careers while nowadays most go in to the service sector (lawyers and doctors) or business.
Government Censoring Science----
ReplyDeleteAn example of the government censoring science lies in the supression of the publicity of the global warming problem, a fact that could not have more drastic biological consequences in terms of possible mass extinctions. Hundreds of cases have been cited regarding the government hampering the spread of global warming awareness and funding for global warming research. A specific case took place in 2006 in California, where scientists were discouraged from describing the connection between global warming and hurricanes (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2467733&page=1). The reasons for this are plenty, and one major one is that oil lobbyists and major oil producers want to keep the public ignorant of the fact that burning fossil fuels accelerates global warming, so they bring their special agendas to the politicians of our country. It is this lobbying that causes suppression of science.
Government Supporting Science----------
The Nazi government of World War II Germany supported tons of genetics research (specifically eugenics), simply because the racist agenda that the Nazis had provoked them to try to create a "super race" or a race that was strong, blonde-haired and blue-eyed and the "perfect Aryan." This enabled madmen like Joseph Mengele to do horrendous "experiments" on concentration camp victims in the name of science.
Opinion:
I beleive that government should have no effect on scientific research, and that only the people decide how much research is needed. The reason for this is that the public consciense will almost always point to the best balance of ethics and knowledge regarding the sciences.