Scientist Cannot Simply Do "Pure" Research, Because

¶ … scientist cannot simply do "pure" research, because in almost all branches of science, there is no such thing. Science is embedded in our society, and when science is applied, it has repercussions that are broad-reaching, whether it is the discovery and application of a new drug, a new material, or a new type of computer or diagnostic tool. Therefore, scientists must understand the culture in which they are working, and advocate for the support of their research as well as its ethical application.

A case in point is genetic anthropology, a field of research that uses the human genome to trace our origins on this planet and also to understand the differences between groups of people. Subtle but consistent differences in our genome may lead to a deeper understanding not only of our origins and the way we spread out on this planet, but of genetic vulnerabilities to certain illnesses (such as, for instance, sickle cell anemia) as well as possible treatments for those conditions.

However, genetic anthropology can also inflame historical and racial battles, and can exploit "pure" and indigenous people without according them genuine respect or allowing them to participate in the financial gain that the science of their genes may lead to. Certain subtypes of genes seem to cluster in specific ethnic groups, and though we may be uncomfortable with that, they seem at least loosely aligned with traits, illnesses, and behaviors.

New evidence indicates that intelligence, and even the amount of gray matter in our frontal lobes, is inherited -- a finding that could be explosive given the history of eugenics. Other evidence indicates that racial differences affect the way we metabolize various drugs -- and thus that drugs might specifically be developed for specific racial groups.

Should a scientist simply continue to research differences in intelligence, or difference in the way blacks and Caucasians respond to various drugs -- without understanding the impact of his research, and making sure to guide his research properly into the real world, becoming a kind of ethical advocate for his research? Genetic anthropology is a challenge, because it brings us face-to-face with prejudices that are inherent in our culture and in other cultures.

When scientists have tried to collect the blood of certain indigenous peoples, in order to study the unique idiosyncracies of their genome, the people have often protested violently. Some felt their blood was being stolen, and they would not reap the economic benefit -- instead, the corporations and drug companies sponsoring the university research would make the money. Native Americans, for instance, have protested that scientists want to patent their genes to make money. Though this is a simplistic understanding, to some extent, they are correct.

Though scientists may think of themselves as purists, and may simply want to do their "pure" research in their laboratories, studying genetically isolated populations to help further life-saving research or simply to better understand our history and past, they must not and cannot operate in an ivory tower. That is because their science, sooner or later, will leave that ivory tower. Science will be applied. The fact is, genetic anthropology often intersects very meaningfully with society. One genetic study found.