The Medawar Lecture 1998 – Is science dangerous?
Topic/Lesson
1. Difficult Concepts (What concepts did you find difficult to understand?)
i. The concept of cloning, genes and stem cells
ii. The concept of gene therapy
iii. Designer babies
2. Insights (What new insights or learnings did you gain in discussion/ activity?)
i. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I was aware that science
and technology were two different things- science is the body of knowledge
that tries to explain ‘why’ or ‘how’ a certain phenomenon happens while
technology is the application or practical usage of science. But I used to
think that it would be better if the scientific knowledge disclosed to the public
is filtered- wherein the harmful ideas and dangerous concepts would not be
known by the public.
However, reading the article/understanding the lesson, I now think/realize
that scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value.
There is no such thing as pleasing or damaging scientific knowledge because
it simply tells us how the world works and/or how the world is. It is a body of
knowledge. The danger of it might only exist when applied in technology, in a
bad way that is. For example, telling someone that they can kill a person
when they fire a gun at them is not dangerous until that person actually does
it. The idea of using fire for daily living is not dangerous until someone uses it to
harm someone else.
ii. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I was aware of the idea
of serendipity– that discoveries can happen by chance– but I unconsciously
believed that when scientists do their research, they were somehow aware of
what their possible discoveries would be and how will they be used by the
Topic/Lesson
1. Difficult Concepts (What concepts did you find difficult to understand?)
i. The concept of cloning, genes and stem cells
ii. The concept of gene therapy
iii. Designer babies
2. Insights (What new insights or learnings did you gain in discussion/ activity?)
i. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I was aware that science
and technology were two different things- science is the body of knowledge
that tries to explain ‘why’ or ‘how’ a certain phenomenon happens while
technology is the application or practical usage of science. But I used to
think that it would be better if the scientific knowledge disclosed to the public
is filtered- wherein the harmful ideas and dangerous concepts would not be
known by the public.
However, reading the article/understanding the lesson, I now think/realize
that scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value.
There is no such thing as pleasing or damaging scientific knowledge because
it simply tells us how the world works and/or how the world is. It is a body of
knowledge. The danger of it might only exist when applied in technology, in a
bad way that is. For example, telling someone that they can kill a person
when they fire a gun at them is not dangerous until that person actually does
it. The idea of using fire for daily living is not dangerous until someone uses it to
harm someone else.
ii. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I was aware of the idea
of serendipity– that discoveries can happen by chance– but I unconsciously
believed that when scientists do their research, they were somehow aware of
what their possible discoveries would be and how will they be used by the
