Science's Obligations to Society: Benefits and Responsibilities

Introduction

All human knowledge, past and present, has been painstakingly acquired for the benefit of mankind. Though ancient philosophers sought knowledge for its own sake, they also took care to ensure that what they gained was disseminated among the masses. Ancient inventions and discoveries — from fire and the wheel to the simple things we take for granted — were given to the world by enquiring minds, and these advancements have benefited society enormously. Modern science has undergone a change both in its definition and in the methods by which it seeks to gain knowledge. The basic quality of science is that it is grounded in empiricism. To elaborate, science arrives at the truth of a matter through observation, which is then used to create a hypothesis; that hypothesis is subsequently tested and verified rigorously before a conclusion or an irrefutable theory is reached. That is why, unlike other human methods of acquiring knowledge, science is said to offer the most dependable method available (Young, 2001, pp. 4–5). Traditional methods of thought have largely been replaced by rationalism. That science contributes to human civilization is a fact, though it cannot be measured in strictly mathematical terms (Wigner, Wightman, & Mehra, 1998, p. 461). "Little science" was promoted by individuals, and even today individual and group contributions remain important, while "big science" has emerged in areas requiring huge investments and multidisciplinary collaboration (Wigner, Wightman, & Mehra, 1998, p. 460).

The scientist, however, is not infallible. As a human being, the scientist carries within himself or herself the seeds of upbringing, faith, and environment. The social and political climate of a country can exert its own influence on science. For example, research into the history of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Germany revealed that where there was profit or personal gain to be made, professional ethics and codes of conduct failed, and individuals collaborated with the regime to conduct experiments of a criminal dimension. The demographic and racial studies of the Nazi regime, for example, contributed to the extermination of an entire people. That scientists were involved in such experiments has been verified by historical study (Gruss, 2005). Scientists are at times compelled by faith, political pressure, or social environment to abandon their morals and values, and to act in ways that are detrimental to society.

The Role of Science in Society Today

All societies have absorbed scientific contributions into their daily functioning. Science has added to the quality of human life. The modern welfare state cannot hope to function without the medical, technical, and informational frontiers advanced by science. Science provides people with access to treatment, security, education, information, and the basic necessities of life. Today, the economics of science and its cultural impact on society are among the major areas of concern. We can view science from four angles: as a storehouse of human knowledge, as an embodiment of the human will to progress, as a means of questioning and adjusting our understanding of natural phenomena, and as the most important tool available to promote human welfare (Safeguarding Scientific Culture: A Contribution from EIROforum, 2002).

How, then, do we define the scientist, and how can we relate the service of science to society? Earlier scientific thinking was deeply dependent on social norms, particularly those shaped by culture and faith. The scientist was expected to flow with the prevailing system. Over the course of his career, Thomas Huxley tried to establish a role model for the scientist in the nineteenth century. The "Victorian man of science," however, did not follow a streamlined career pattern. The early scientist was recognized not primarily for scientific contributions but for assertions on social and cultural questions, serving as a significant "other" within the broader intellectual landscape. Science at that time tended to borrow heavily from theology, literature, and the elitist thought of the British Empire (White, 2003, p. 170).

There is nothing entirely unique about the learning process in science. All experience builds on previous knowledge, and science is not exceptional in this regard. In science, the division of labor is organized so that collective work results in discovery and the correction of erroneous belief. The greatest advantage of science is the minimal degree of error that can creep into its conclusions. Comparisons of weighted averages or observations made by laypeople are sometimes based on erroneous analogies, while the scientist is trained to recognize that results can be interpreted in multiple ways and that the researcher's own thinking may bear upon those results. The prevalence of science today does not mean it has replaced all traditional patterns of thought. Afro-American herbal medicine is one such example — a reorientation of knowledge carried by earlier generations that arrived as enslaved people — and the fact that this knowledge continues to grow and thrive without formal scientific study demonstrates that traditional knowledge remains vital (Ross, 1996, p. 180). We can therefore see the effects of science on society in the broader development of civilization as a whole.

The technology and human comforts we enjoy today are the result of scientific efforts to give society value through knowledge. Problems arise when science is directed at personal gain or mobilized for political ends — that is when questions of scientific responsibility come to the fore. There is a prevalent belief that science holds a special place, and that the rationality and common sense once revered have been dislodged. Yet the setting of standards for truth and logic has become fragmented across disciplines, and today science is viewed by many as simply another part of a larger story. The awe with which it was once held as sacrosanct is fading. As Dick Pels (2003, p. 25) observes, "'Science' in the singular has come to be seen as bad shorthand for a vast plurality of practices, which are fragmented across many disciplines, niches, paradigms, and approaches."

The question — "What is so special about science?" as raised by Feyerabend — invites the answer that there is perhaps nothing uniquely special about it. It is an irrefutable point that since the Renaissance, literature and the fine arts have also contributed to the progress of culture and society. Cultural refinement occurred through aesthetic appreciation of these human outputs. While those contributions cannot be ignored, it is equally true that thinkers of earlier times often put forward unverified and erroneous theories on scientific questions. The works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Hippocrates, and many others suffered from the absence of a rigorous method capable of testing their hypotheses and resolving all doubts (Pels, 2003, p. 25). Science can serve society in multiple ways and, to a great extent, it has. Two streams flow alongside each other: one is the culture- and enjoyment-based arts, aimed broadly at entertaining and enriching; the other is scientific knowledge, which while enhancing the quality of art also offers a reliable method of inquiry and a deeper understanding of the subject under study. Science can open the doors of the past to rectify mistaken beliefs and cast light on the uncertain future (Thornton, 1939, p. 121).

Benefits of Science and the Obligation to Society

It is science that brought about satellites, modern communication, and even recreated dinosaurs for audiences on screen. Science has fundamentally changed the way we view our world. Public awareness about the environment and the consequences of human action has now filtered down to ordinary people, and there is a growing desire to change behaviors that harm the planet. It must be noted, however, that in the beginning science was often used for military might and for the economic aggrandizement of the wealthy (The Role of Science and Technology in Society and Governance, 1998). It was this unbridled exploitation of scientific discoveries that has contributed to the ecological disaster we now face. Therefore, science — having helped create this situation — must now be used to aid those who suffer from its consequences, to restore the environment, and to address the misery caused by earlier misuses. Achieving this will require incorporating into the scientific enterprise the philosophy and wisdom of "indigenous societies and philosophers from all cultures" (The Role of Science and Technology in Society and Governance, 1998).

Scientists must address policy questions and help build public awareness in areas where profit motives could overwhelm broader humanitarian concerns. The common good ought to be the scientist's primary aim, rather than recognition or reward from sponsors or governments. Scientists must take care that their work reaches and benefits marginalized people, justifying research expenditures in ways that demonstrate how future contributions will help economically and socially disadvantaged communities (The Role of Science and Technology in Society and Governance, 1998). The most important task is to redefine the role of science in relation to society and governance.

Conclusion

It is science that has carried modern society out of the dark medieval ages, and therefore its contribution to civilization is immense. On the other hand, science has also contributed to direct destruction and calamity in the world by serving political and economic ambitions. The time has come to correct that trajectory. Just as literature and the fine arts carry obligations to society and operate according to self-regulating principles that enable them to serve the public good, science and the scientific community must develop principles to govern their explorations and the uses to which their findings are put. Scientists must be sensitive to the needs of the underprivileged in society, ensuring that the advancement of knowledge translates into genuine benefit for all of humanity, not merely the powerful few.

References

Crow, Michael M. (2001). Harnessing science to benefit society. The Chronicle Review, B20.

Gruss, Peter. (2005). History of science particular ethical and moral obligation. Max Planck Society.

N.A. (2002). Safeguarding scientific culture: A contribution from EIROforum. Contribution to the European Convention Forum. EIROforum.

N.A. (1998). The role of science and technology in society and governance. World Conference on Science: Toward a New Contract between Science and Society. Kananaskis Village, Alberta, Canada. UNESCO.

Pels, Dick. (2003). Unhastening science: Autonomy and reflexivity in the social theory of knowledge. Liverpool University Press.

Ross, Andrew. (1996). Science wars. Duke University Press.

Thornton, Jesse E. (1939). Science and social change. The Brookings Institution.

White, Paul. (2003). Thomas Huxley: Making the man of science. Cambridge University Press.

Wigner, Eugene Paul, Wightman, A. S., & Mehra, Jagdish. (1998). The collected works of Eugene Paul Wigner. Springer.

Young, Matt. (2001). No sense of obligation: Science and religion in an impersonal universe. AuthorHouse.