David Ludkin wrote,
>As persons of scientific bent, how shall we regard such questions? Do we
>consider the misuse that research into questions like these may lead to?
>If any of the above is true, what uses of this information is legitimate?
>I consider it a misuse of science to resist research in some areas while
>not
in others, especially when that resistance derives from political reasons.
The idea that valid research can be misused calls into question policies
based on these very ideas. After all, who gets to decide what constitutes
misuse of research, other than whatever ideology reigns (whether fascist,
totalitarian, socialist, Republican or Stalinist). I think the best use of
the results of valid research (no matter into what Dangerous questions it
has delved) relates to gaining a more accurate picture or model of reality,
which may then come in handy for making policy decisions. To reverse this
process so that science serves politics perverts the scientific method into
a weapon of demagogy, ideology, or theology as the case may apply.<
>And what percentage of Americans truly understand that statistically valid
results
>say nothing about how an individual should be treated?
>Although such results say nothing about how an individual should be
>treated,
they may say something about how to treat groups. For example, if research
shows that (to take as an example something which requires not much
research, for the purposes of discussion, due to the dearth of real research
for politically correct reasons) African pygmies don't do well at
basketball, that would tend to argue against spending millions to promote
basketball among pygmies. Likewise, if research shows, a la _Zen and the
Brain, Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness_, (but not
necessarily in agreement with any of the findings of that book) that female
brains do not experience Samadhi (or Satori, if you're Japanese) and that
only some male brains do so, that would tend to argue against spending
millions to promote zendos for females.<
The best solution to the problem of dangerous questions might be to put them on hold. Archive raw data relating to them, but don't do actual studies until the question has become quite trivial. In other words, wait until biotech, nanotech, etc. have advanced enough & are widely enough available to equalize any disparity in question, then use the archived data, along with voluntary "control naturals" to study the formerly "dangerous" questions.
Who knows...people might get so used to their favorite things being done without the "government's" involvement, and so happy at the resulting acceptance of diversity, choice, and innovative eccentricity that they might just decide to leave those studies undone forever...or maybe let some grad student work the data over to do an unusual thesis.
-
Brian Keavey
<bk_2112@hotmail.com>
<http://members.tripod.com/~bk_2112/>