Professor (Dr.) Patrick Lin, an “ethicist,” uses the terms “science” and “technology” in his lengthy, meandering narrative instigated by, as he puts it, “world’s largest particle accelerator” (“Armageddon it,” Sept. 18). He never defines what he means by these terms and lets the readers conjure the meaning.
Yes, there may be a feeling as to what these terms mean in general. However, to write a serious discourse about the “ethical” consequences of any action underway, one must succinctly and clearly delineate as to what the writer himself/herself means by these terms. Only then can one relate to the underlying soundness of the reasoning for the viewpoints expressed.
In this regard, one must also point out the perceptions the general public has of the term “ethical.” There are as many varied concepts of the term “ethical” as there are individuals expressing the view on the issue at hand. In the famous, oft-quoted phrases, “beauty is when I see it” or “pornography is when I see it,” “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and such other phrases.
Unlike the technologies specifically mentioned, which are primarily in the realm of aiming at achieving the “bottom line” in economic terms for a given group of individuals by exploiting the masses, the “world’s largest particle accelerator” has no such aim, and is not just a technological advance, rather a “basic science experiment.” In the paraphrased words of the late Richard Feynman, this science experiment is simply to explore the unknown aspects of “nature,” just as the exploration by the first experiment was to understand the nature of atoms, constituting matter. Undoubtedly, this spawned consequences that can be and have been declared “unethical” by many well-meaning “ethicists.”
The example of the technology to master the fabrication of the atomic bomb, with its entailed catastrophic consequences, was contrasted in terms of the annihilation of the civilized world by crazed Nazism, even though the first use of the atomic bomb unfortunately created the most painful, tragic, “ethical” question of its being used against a particular group of people who today are within the norm of human conduct for the good of this world.
“Basic scientific” experimentation necessarily means to explore the unknown without predicting, in advance, all the consequences and assure the usefulness with no “unethical” side effects. If that were possible, the unraveling of the three-dimensional structure of DNA at the molecular level should never have been allowed as it has brought us to the point, labeled as “unethical” by powerful and influential personalities, of creating “human life” by means other than what we are familiar with, namely the sexual union of a “woman” and “man.” What could be more disastrous to end the world as we know it?
One hastens to add that those who undertake “basic science” experiments are not so cavalier as to have no concern about the welfare of others. Keep in mind, if there were the probability of ending the world this year, it includes these scientists as well, and they are full cognizant of the same.
This article appears in Sep 25 – Oct 2, 2008.