Social Responsibility: The Researcher in Society

Transcription

1 'Eye of God stares down at us from the depths of space, watching our tiny world from 700 light years away.the blue pupil, the white of the eye and pink lid are created by layers of gas and dust thrown off and illuminated by the star as it comes to the end of its life over the course of thousands of years. The Daily Mail (UK), 2/26/09 Social Responsibility: The Researcher in Society FIRST: HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW? EYE OF GOD image has been WILLIAM manipulated; L. GANNON, composite PH.D. of photos. Photograph of coil-shaped Helix Nebula is one of the largest GRADUATE and most STUDIES detailed celestial images ever made. Described by astronomers as "a trillion-mile-long tunnel of glowing gases." The composite picture is a seamless blend of ultra-sharp images from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope combined with the wide view of the Mosaic Camera on 0.9-meter telescope at Kitt 1 Peak National Observatory near Tucson, Ariz. from NASA s HUBBLE SITE News, May 9, 2003

2 I CAN T (HUME) HOW CAN I KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL? WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE LEFT WITH BELIEF TABLE, GOD, UNICORN, SANTA, FERRARI, IDEAS, PLANET ALL ARE REAL BECAUSE I CAN BELIEVE THEM TO BE (THE DEMOCRACY OF UNKNOWING ) WAYS OF KNOWING USED IN SOCIETY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: AUTHORITY: PARENTS, TEACHERS, COMMUNITY LEADERS, AND PHYSICIANS ARE ALL FIGURES OF AUTHORITY. THE LEVEL OF TRUST WE HAVE IN THEM DEPENDS ON OUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEM. BELIEF: GOD OR GODS, OR OTHER EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL SUPERNATURAL POWERS CAN IMPART OR SUPPORT BELIEFS. THERE ARE NUMEROUS DEITIES AND LEVELS AND TYPES OF BELIEF WITHIN ANY SOCIETY. LOGIC: LOGIC INCLUDES TESTS AND RULES THAT HELP TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS TRUE AND FALSE. IT IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY BUT IS LIMITED BY ITS LACK OF REFERENCE TO THE NATURAL WORLD. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: SCIENCE PROVIDES KNOWLEDGE BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE NATURAL WORLD. SCIENCE IS THE ONLY WAY OF KNOWING THAT PROVIDES EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE TESTABLE AND VERIFIABLE. IDEAS IN SCIENCE ACCUMULATE OVER TIME AND ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION AND CHANGE.

3 BELIEVE OR KNOW? CAN WE KNOW ANYTHING? (OR DOES THE POSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE-AS-CERTAINTY SEEM SLIGHT?) DO WE HAVE A FIXED POINT OF REFERENCE? CAPABLE OF OBJECTIVITY WE ARE LOCKED IN OUR OWN MINDS AND LANGUAGE IS CLUMSY OUR SENSES LIMITED AND UNRELIABLE (THINK OF A BAT ) AND IN A UNIVERSE OF CONTINUOUS CHANGE HAS ALL OF WHAT YOU KNOW BEEN DISCOVERED BY YOU? NOT SO MUCH BUT WE DO HAVE METHODS TO KNOW LOGICAL REASONING, INTUITION AND EMPIRICAL STUDY LEADS TO KNOWLEDGE-AS-RELIABLE-FACT

4 BRING TOGETHER KNOWLEDGE THAT IS RECOGNIZABLE TO US BY AN ABSENCE OF DISSONANCE IN OUR IDEAS WE ARE A RESULT OF A SMALL ORGANIC PHENOMENON IN A HUGE INORGANIC UNIVERSE WITH AN ABILITY OF AWARE- MINDEDNESS COULD OTHER CRITTERS HAVE THIS TOO? SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW OR WHAT WE DON T

5 HOW DO WE GAIN KNOWLEDGE TO ASK THE QUESTION ( HOW CAN I KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ) MEANS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO KNOW TO DENY THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO KNOW IS IN FACT KNOWLEDGE IN ITSELF- SO, WE CAN SETTLE THAT! (THANKS TO SKEPTICISM FOR ALLOWING CONTRADICTION AS ARGUMENT) TO KNOW - GO THROUGH A SERIES OF EXPERIENCES THAT GROW TO FORM AN OPINION NOW NEED TO JUSTIFY THAT KNOWLEDGE TESTING AN OBSERVATION LEADS TO A GREATER CERTAINTY OF KNOWLEDGE EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE WHERE CLAIMS ARE MADE AND CONTINUOUSLY TESTED A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE REASONING THROUGH AN IDEA TO ESTABLISH TRUTHFULNESS

6 DESCARTES TOTAL PHILOSOPHY: WHY RENÉ DESCARTES SAID 'I THINK, THEREFORE I AM' DO YOU GET YOUR KNOWLEDGE FROM OTHER PEOPLE OR OTHER THINGS? DO YOU HAVE THE SAME KNOWLEDGE AS SOMEONE IN ROME OR NAIROBI OR NOME? COULD YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE IF YOU WERE RAISED IN A DARK CLOSET?

7 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SCIENCE OFFERS A METHOD (THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD) FOR OBTAINING KNOWLEDGE. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE (READING, LISTENING, CONVERSATIONS, LIVED EXPERIENCE) BUT THESE WAYS DO NOT PRODUCE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. SO SCIENCE IS ONE WAY (NOT THE ONLY WAY) OF KNOWING. IT'S JUST A WAY TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS BEHIND FINDING THINGS OUT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD. AS OPPOSED TO JUST GUESSING OR MAKING GENERALIZATIONS - THERE ARE STEPS INVOLVED SO THAT THE ANSWERS OR LACK OF ANSWERS YOU GET ARE VALID. THIS IS CALLED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. HERE'S WHAT SOME OF THE STEPS COULD BE: 1. DEFINE THE QUESTION 2. GATHER INFORMATION AND RESOURCES (OBSERVE) 3. FORM HYPOTHESIS 4. PERFORM EXPERIMENT AND COLLECT DATA 5. ANALYZE DATA 6. INTERPRET DATA AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS THAT SERVE AS A STARTING POINT FOR NEW HYPOTHESIS 7. PUBLISH RESULTS 8. RETEST (FREQUENTLY DONE BY OTHER SCIENTISTS)

8 "For a scientist, integrity embodies above all the individual's commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility For an institution, [integrity] is a commitment to creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness " -Integrity in Scientific Research, The National Academy of Sciences 8

9 Born in England in 1923, Freeman Dyson moved to Cornell University after graduating from Cambridge University with a BA in Mathematics. He subsequently became a professor and worked on nuclear reactors, solid state physics, ferromagnetism, astrophysics and biology. He has published several books and, among other honors, has been awarded the Heineman Prize and the Royal Society's Hughes Medal. 9

10 AGENT ORANGE (AS SEEN IN OBAS, PG 49) Ending the Use of Agent Orange In the early 1940s, a graduate student in botany at the University of Illinois named Arthur W. Galston found that application of a synthetic chemical could hasten the flowering of plants, enabling crops to be grown in colder climates. But if the chemical was applied at higher concentrations, it was extremely toxic, causing the leaves of the plants to fall off. Galston reported the results in his 1943 thesis before moving to the California Institute of Technology and then serving in the Navy during the final years of World War II. Following the war, Galston learned that military researchers had read his thesis and had used it, along with other research, to devise powerful herbicides that could be used in wartime. Beginning in 1962, the U.S. military sprayed more than 50,000 tons of these herbicides on forests and fields in Vietnam. By far the most widely used mixture of defoliants was known as Agent Orange, from the orange stripe around the 55-gallon drums used to store the chemicals. Galston, Arthur W. Science and Social Responsibility: A Case History. Annals of the New York Academy of Science (1972):196:223. Galston later wrote that the use of his research in the development of Agent Orange provided the scientific and emotional link that compelled my involvement in opposition to the massive spraying of these compounds during the Vietnam War. At the 1966 meeting of the American Society of Plant Physiologists, he circulated a resolution citing the possible toxic effects of defoliants on humans and animals and the long-term consequences for food production and the environment, which he sent to President Lyndon Johnson. During the next several years, as evidence for the toxic effects of Agent Orange accumulated, Galston and a growing number of other scientists continued to oppose the use of defoliants in the Vietnam War. In 1969, he and several other scientists met with President Richard Nixon s science adviser, whom Galston had known at Caltech, and presented him with information on the harmful effects of Agent Orange. The science adviser recommended to the president that the spraying be discontinued, and the use of defoliants was phased out in 1970, five years before the end of the war. Galton later wrote, I used to think that one could avoid involvement in the anti-social consequences of science simply by not working on any project that might be turned to evil or destructive ends. I have learned that things are not that simple.... The only recourse is for a scientist to remain involved with it to the end. 10

11 WHAT IS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY? AN ETHICAL IDEOLOGY OR THEORY THAT AN ENTITY (AN ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL), HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ACT TO BENEFIT SOCIETY AT LARGE. (WIKIPEDIA). CAN BE PASSIVE AS NON-MALEFICENCE (DO NO HARM) OR ACTIVE AS BENEFICENCE (IN PROMOTING GOOD) OR AS BENEVOLENCE (THROUGH ACTIVITIES THAT DIRECTLY ADVANCE INDIVIDUALS LIVES AND SOCIAL GOALS). BASIC VALUES UNDERPINNING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: AUTONOMY, RESPECT FOR PERSONS, KINDNESS TRUTHFULNESS, HONESTY, OBJECTIVITY/SUBJECTIVITY JUSTICE, FAIRNESS AND EQUITY 11

12 INTELLIGENT DESIGN? /WHAT_YOU_CAN_DO/SCIENCE-AS-A-WAY-OF- KNOWING.HTML#.VD7KCFL4RYG

13 IS CLIMATE CHANGING HOW DO YOU KNOW?

14 IF ITS SCIENCE, WHY DON T THEY ALL AGREE?

15 CLIMATE SCIENCE AND FALSIFIABILITY RICHARD LAWSON PHILOSOPHY NOW SEPT/OCT 2014 ONE HAND, CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNING WE MUST MAKE RADICAL CHANGES OTHER HAND POLITICIANS INTENSELY LOBBIED/FINANCED BY FOSSIL FUEL CORPS; INACTION PEOPLE DON T LIKE WEIRD WEATHER BUT DON T LIKE POTENTIAL HIGHER COST FOR FUEL HOW UNLOCK THIS? CAN T PROVE CLIMATE IS CHANGING BECAUSE OF THE WAY SCIENCE GAINS KNOWLEDGE KARL POPPER AND PRINCIPLE OF FALSIFIABILITY THEORY NOT YET DIS-PROVEN MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED THOMAS KUHN AND THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (PARADIGM SHIFTS) MOST SCIENTISTS ARE PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE WITH UNCERTAINTY

16 ASK THE QUESTION SO THAT SCIENCE CAN ANSWER IT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HAVE MANY HYPOTHESES THAT ARE BEING TESTED CONCURRENTLY, BUT THAT THESE ALL POINT TO: BECAUSE OF EARTH S SYSTEM FEEDBACKS, EVIDENCE FROM TEMPERATURE, PALEOLOGICAL, ENERGY MODELS, AND OTHER STUDIES POINT TO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE OF FROM 1.5 TO 4.5 C LIKELY A 3 C RISE. THIS IS TOO CUMBERSOME FOR PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AND SCIENTISTS CAN T SAY THIS WILL HAPPEN. CAN WE DISPROVE CONTRARIAN HYPOTHESES? THIS CAN BE CALLED A NULL HYPOTHESIS AS WELL. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE (OR NO EFFECT, OR NO CHANGE, ETC.). A TESTABLE CONTRARIAN HYPOTHESIS: THE EFFECT OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES IS TRIVIAL, TEMPERATURES WILL RISE ONLY 0.5 TO 1.0 C AND NO MORE; WARRANTS NO SOCIETAL ACTION SHOWN TO BE FALSE NEXT HYPOTHESIS PLEASE.

17 SOMETHING TO CHEW ON. SCIENCE IS NICE: WOULD YOU SAY THAT, ANYTHING YOU CANNOT PROVE OR PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR DOES NOT EXIST OR IS NOT REAL? IS SCIENCE UNBIASED? "THERE HAS BEEN A CONFLUENCE OF CONCERN FROM VARIOUS SOURCES WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND FROM OUTSIDE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE IS NOT PRODUCING NEW KNOWLEDGE OF SUFFICIENTLY HIGH QUALITY," SAID KATRINA KELNER, EDITOR OF SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE AND ORGANIZER OF SESSION. " THIS ISSUE OF REPRODUCIBILITY IS A PROBLEM OF INCREASINGLY GREAT CONCERN TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ITSELF AND IT IS, ONE COULD ARGUE, LEGITIMATELY OF INTEREST TO THE BROADER SOCIETY BECAUSE OF THE ROBUST PUBLIC SUPPORT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH."

18 THE RESEARCHER IN SOCIETY RESPONSIBILITIES GO BEYOND THOSE TO SCIENCE EXTEND TO HOW WORK COULD BE USED IN BROADER SOCIETY WHAT IS YOUR ROLE IN SOCIETY? ROLE IN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL USES OF NEW KNOWLEDGE SOMETIMES EXPERTS SOMETIMES STANDING EQUAL TO OTHERS IN PUBLIC ARENA PERFORM AND PRESENT DATA AS OBJECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE WHEN ADVOCATE, THERE IS A BIAS PERCEPTION VALUES OF SCIENCE HONESTY, FAIRNESS, COLLEGIALITY, OPENNESS 18

19

20

21 THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY: AN INTEGRAL APPROACH --ENCARNACIO N CABALLERO-DI AZ, BARTOLOME M. SIMONET, MIGUEL VALCA RCE RECEIVED: 11 SEPTEMBER 2012 / ACCEPTED: 22 FEBRUARY 2013 / PUBLISHED ONLINE: 10 MARCH 2013: 21

22 ARE READY TO INTERACT WITH SOCIETY REGARDING YOUR RESEARCH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS? 22