Q3: Blog 1

  Years of abuse and cynicism have led to a great deal of mistrust in the sciences, some of it is due after some of the things that science has produced. Physics gave us the atom bomb, and biochemistry gave us nerve gas. It is to focus on the bad elements of what science has given us but in an age when we have access to cheap, clean water, and genetically modified food which is more accessible than ever, the benefits of well applied science are extraordinary. Scientific process is the crop of man, it should be reaped and grown, and all of it only requiring the cost of funding and manpower. The power of science, and the related dangers do not usually stem from the sciences themselves, but are derived from the governments or organizations that utilize them against fellow man. To totally discredit science as safe is also fallacious though, Marie Curie serving as the prime example; however, it is infinitely more the choice of the scientist to pursue these avenues. Scientists have a very dangerous job, especially when attempting to permeate into the outside of human knowledge. This should not call for government regulation, this should call for more funding. The sciences must be allowed to grow and continue unchallenged, what is produced from that then, must be regulated. It is the product, not the process.

  The Large Hadron Collider in Stockholm is essentially a huge network of pipes that sends the nuclei of atoms into each other. Essentially, it is a giant atom smasher. The resulting information can reproduce the effects of the big bang and shed some light on what we believe may have started the universe. It may also create a black hole, assuming scientists have miscalculated, the risk of this though is incredibly low. The general public is terrified of the machine, because the danger it represents, and what is worse is that the use of the LHC was debated in some circles. Of course if things go wrong it may only amount to a small fire, people quickly generalize the possible dangers down to the worst case scenario. Cloning for instance, is a huge question on the term of ethics, yet cloning occurs every day hundreds of times through mitosis. Generally the public forum has a way of misinterpreting the dangers of science, and jumping very quickly to the most shocking result. Ethics is a very debatable quality, and all variables should be considered. Unfortunately in science, the number of variables are tremendous. Criticism should be left to the professionals who have trained and crunched numbers to keep the world from being sucked into a black hole. After all that is their job.

  Another inherently dangerous quality of science is the way direction that it takes us. Progressiveness is a shockingly scary thing, just ask the anti-suffragists during the rallies for woman's suffrage. People need to move forward slowly and cautiously lest they wind up reveling success in the flames. Despite this possibility is perfunctory to the human spirit to explore the universe and the self no matter how complex. Part of this involves relishing in the dangers of research, and being destructive top some extent. The passion of human discovery outweighs the cost of human safety. If given the tools to learn and grow, then it would be seen as animosity towards the human spirit to deny man the right to explore, science gives us that capability, so do not limit its capabilities.