The hazards and benefits of science and technology

Technology

THE HAZARDS and BENEFITS of TECHNOLOGY

Throughout the history of science, new advances and discoveries have had to confront criticisms from those worried about the possible dangers associated with new technology. During the Middle Ages, astronomers like Giordano Bruno were burned at the stake for publicizing astronomical observations that contradicted religious teachings about the origin and history of the Solar System. Even Galileo was branded a heretic, threatened with torture and death, and ultimately confined to the Medieval equivalent of "house arrest" for the remainder of his life (Bishop 1997).

On the other hand, new technologies and modern applications of science are not necessarily entirely risk free. Especially when science is conducted or applied for the purposes of business for profit, the risks naturally associated with them are magnified dramatically. Ecological history provides numerous examples illustrating the potential risks of irresponsible scientific applications (Rifkin 2004).

Discussion of the Issue:

Modern genetic technology represents a fundamental difference between the types of agricultural advances before and after the genetic revolution made possible by the technologies of the Genetic Age. Previously, scientists were limited by the natural processes of genetic inheritance; since the beginning of the modern science of genetic engineering, the limits have changed substantially. Now, for the first time, scientists are actually creating new life forms (Rifkin 2004).

Ecological history provides numerous examples of the types of risks posed by the artificial introduction of non-indigenous species into an existing ecosystem. The many examples of devastation caused by non-native organisms within a foreign ecosystem include the Gypsy moth, Kudzu vine, Dutch elm disease, chestnut blight, among others (Rifkin 2004). In the case of artificially produced new forms of life created in laboratories, the dangers are potentially even greater for several reasons.

First, both natural evolution and even traditional scientific agricultural methods result in much slower and less dramatic types of changes than those made possible through the use of modern genetic engineering. Second, the profit motive sometimes overshadows these concern; third, many applications of genetically engineered agriculture relate to creating stronger crops that are more resistant to disease along with the simultaneous development of stronger pesticides. In addition to these major concerns, modern agricultural engineering science also presents possible dangers of depleting the agricultural gene pool and the production of new foods capable of triggering unexpected allergic reactions in certain people (Rifkin 2004). Analysis and Opinion:

Unfortunately, the bases of some of the most vocal critics of science come from those who are completely ignorant of the many benefits of modern science. Meanwhile, the profit motivation sometimes inspires irresponsible risk taking by those who are more greedy than ignorant. Scientific technology must not be limited by ignorance, but it must be regulated so that legitimate ecological concerns are not overlooked for the sake of short-term financial gains. While the criticisms voiced by religious conservatives and the uneducated lay public are unfounded (Bishop 1997), the profit motive certainly does increase the chances of ecologically dangerous developments associated with modern scientific applications, such as those within the agricultural engineering sciences (Rifkin 2004).

The risk presented by the process of "gene flow" described by Rifkin (2004) is particularly dangerous ecologically. Agricultural scientists are currently developing very hardy strains of vegetables, such as tomatoes with "antifreeze" genes transferred from flounder and potatoes with disease resistance genes from chickens (Rifkin 2004). At the same time, they are developing very strong new pesticides for agricultural use against weeds that are naturally very resistant to external threats because they mutate so readily in nature. The risk is that unintentional cross-pollination of crops could result in the development of weeds and other destructive crops with the greatly enhanced survivability intended to improve only desirable crops (Rifkin 2004)