[EvaH (OP)]

Paul wants to know:

Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science? I think not. Nuclear energy is discovered and some idiot invented the nuclear bomb and in America and probably Russia and China, there are people trying to design bigger bombs and missiles to kill more people.

What do you think?

[Bored chemist]

I think Paul needs to learn the difference between science and technology.

[alancalverd]

And the difference between an idiot and a genius.

Idiots get elected and start wars. Geniuses devise machines to win them.

Geniuses design nuclear power stations and write the operator's manual. Idiots ignore the manual.

Geniuses locate the outbreak of a zoonotic epidemic. Idiots (a) suppress the news or (b) announce that it can be cured by injecting Lysol.

Geniuses discover that the earth orbits the sun. Idiots burn them.

It's not easy, being a scientist. There are lots of people who lack the wit to actually contribute to human knowledge and happiness, but have to be employed somehow, so end up as priests, politicians, philosophers, or Health & Safety Inspectors, and get paid for making life difficult for everyone else - especially those whose business is rationality.

The essence of good research is that the result confounds common knowledge and preconception. Good science is necessarily uncomfortable. Everyone knows the earth is flat, light is a compression wave in the aether, heavy things fall faster than light ones, and atoms (ατομος - cannot be divided) can't disintegrate. Until you show them otherwise, at which point a thousand learned idiots will try to prove you wrong.   

[evan_au]

trying to design bigger bombs and missiles to kill more people.

It's true that a lot of research is funded for military purposes - the Manhattan project to build nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons would not have happened for many years if it hadn't been the fear that Germany was building one first.
- And Germany probably would have, except that Hitler dismissed this (and many other areas of science) as "Jewish Science"

A few other areas that benefited from military investment:
- Airplanes developed from something that moved at a walking pace to international passenger flights, through WW1 and WW2.
- Semiconductor chips were promoted for use in nuclear missiles, and now we all use them
- Continental drift was proven as a result of seafloor surveys trying to improve the navigation of nuclear submarines
- Plate tectonics was demonstrated by a chain of super-sensitive seismometers trying to detect underground nuclear explosions
- Space travel and space exploration grew out of an egotistical cold-war competition between USA and Russia; and now it is firing up again between USA and China
- Advances in computers were often driven by the need to crack secret codes (including modern quantum computers)

One problem with military technology is that it delays the volume production that benefits more people.

I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Some people are realizing that current weapons are sufficiently powerful to drive humanity back to the stone age, and have (so far) avoided widespread use.
Natural disasters like zoonotic diseases, droughts, floods, hurricanes are bad enough, without human-made ones like overpopulation, pollution and wars.

[alancalverd]

Advances in computers were often driven by the need to crack secret codes

You can probably delete or at least minimise "advances in". There's little evidence of interest in programmable digital computing between Babbage and Turing.

Electronic analog computers and the concept of optimal-tracking feedback owe their existence almost entirely to the US Navy antiaircraft program. And even then, when electronic prediction and gun laying was shown to actually get the shells to hit the target, a few idiot admirals complained that it took the skill out of naval gunnery and was bad for morale. But it improved vinyl records beyond anyone's imagination.

And don't forget GPS, which everyone takes for granted nowadays, along with ARPANET, without which you would not be reading this!

[evan_au]

We recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope (with lots of images of stars). It really revolutionized astronomy - for professionals and the public.

The US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) donated an obsolete spy satellite to NASA (perhaps a KH-11?) which formed the basis of the Hubble chassis.

NASA has benefitted from Hubble for 27 years (after the myopia was corrected), but at some points in time, new spy satellites were launched about every 2 months (they don't last very long in low Earth orbit).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen#Design

[alancalverd]

- Airplanes developed from something that moved at a walking pace to international passenger flights, through WW1 and WW2.

Can't resist this one! The US Academy of Sciences told the Wright brothers "There is no conceivable military use for the airplane".

As for volume production, I just learned that the standard controller for modern submarine periscopes was sold to the military for $30,000 until some young submariners noticed that it looked exactly like a $30 Xbox handset - which it is.

[Hardi]

it seems to me that in many cases this is not enough. in the case of safeguards this is a rather sore point. because I also think that there are not enough of them and personnel are leaking from the country

[alancalverd]

Nothing new there, my friend. I see you are based in Poland, birthplace of Marie Curie, my great-grandparents, much-decorated flying instructor, marketing director, and building contractor, all of whom achieved success in foreign lands. It's an odd thing, but somehow the brightest and best of every nation always seem to emigrate westwards. 

The only safeguard for science is, I think, a free market and an entrepreneurial culture that provides a channel for development and reward. 

[Bored chemist]

The only safeguard for science is, I think, a free market and an entrepreneurial culture that provides a channel for development and reward. 

The free market in new tech is what has caused a lot of the problems we currently see- notably the rise of Boris + Trump.
The free market is what made sure that the Russians (and other billionaires) could buy the referendum and the election.

The purpose of government should be to restrain the excesses of the free market, not to encourage them.

[alancalverd]

So the problem with the free market is that it hands control to communists. So they win either way.

The Rise of Boris was due to the incompetence of his Tory predecessors, the disorganised shambles of the opposition, and public disgust with the European Union. Problem is that he is even less competent and organised than the idiots he replaced. Fortunately the Labour Party now has a leader worthy of the title, and if the nationalist rabble can be bought off with your money, things may stop getting worse in about 3 years' time.

The Rise of Trump was due to the lack of any organised opposition. "I'm a woman" is not a vote-grabbing slogan, but a chant of "lock her up" is worthy of Trump's hero and appealed to the herd mentality.

I'm not sure that having a choice of detergent played much part in the decision of the US Electoral College to ignore the popular vote, or the Queen, who had no choice once 90,000 members of the Conservative Party had anointed Cummings' puppet.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the growing perversion of democracy and the failure of the Press to hold politicians to account. 

As far as the free market is concerned, I think the job of government includes ensuring that it remains a genuine market and not a protectionist sham.

[Bored chemist]

So the problem with the free market is that it hands control to communists.

No, it hands it to the billionaires.
It's silly to think of Putin as communist.

The Rise of Boris was due to the incompetence of his Tory predecessors, the disorganised shambles of the opposition, and public disgust with the European Union.

And there was me thinking it was because the media lied about Corbyn at every opportunity, while praising Boris as the new messiah.
The Russian hat scam was particularly ironic.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the growing perversion of democracy and the failure of the Press to hold politicians to account. 

Do you recognise how the Press- owned by billionaires- might not have much option about criticising Boris?
It's not a democracy, it's a plutocracy.

As far as the free market is concerned, I think the job of government includes ensuring that it remains a genuine market and not a protectionist sham.

That would be a step forward.
As it is, they just give multi-million pound contracts to their friends.

[alancalverd]

the media lied about Corbyn

Quite possibly , but a waste of time. Politicians are quite capable of lying for themselves, even about themselves. Corbyn was an effective constituency politician but completely out of his depth once the argument rose above drains and dustbins.

As it is, they just give multi-million pound contracts to their friends.

Including ferry companies with no boats, whose T's and C's were scanned from a Domino's Pizza website, then paid "compensation" to a company that hadn't been invited to tender, then decided they didn't need the work done anyway. Who cares? It's your money, not theirs.

[Bored chemist]

Corbyn was an effective constituency politician but completely out of his depth once the argument rose above drains and dustbins.

Everybody says that .
And of course, they say he was "unelectable".

And then he was elected- again.
Which rather suggests that the nay-saying was propaganda.

[Zer0]

Nobody mentioned Her!
🌵


ada-lovelace.png (696.84 kB . 1080x1080 - viewed 4685 times)

P.S. - She Deserves it.
🌹

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   I can see this is generally an old discussion but looking through the replies, it seems that a fair number of them try to remove the responsibility from the scientists entirely.

Here's an example:

And the difference between an idiot and a genius.

Idiots get elected and start wars. Geniuses devise machines to win them.

    It is unreasonable to propose that scientists have no responsibility whatsoever.  Unless a scientist has been captured and forced to work on developing some sort of weapon or technology, then they have a choice.  Arguably, even if they were captured they still have a choice (but some choices may be extremely harmful to themselves).

   One of the greatest responsibilities for a scientist should be ensuring that the wider public and/or an appropriate organisation that is given authority to act in the public's best interest are consulted whenever they are proposing work on something that may have moral and ethical implications.  We need only look at historical examples like the Stanford Prison experiment to see where things can go wrong if you are driven by scientific curiosity and too involved to be objective in identifying potential harm. 

   This website focuses on educating and motivating young and upcoming scientists.   What the Dickens (an English novelist) are you doing suggesting they can and should do as they wish and it's always someone else's fault if it's misused?   Science is something that human beings do but it is not an excuse to forget about your human obligations.  How you resolve any conflict of interest between your pursuit of science and some human obligations is a much more personal matter that probably falls outside the scope of this thread.  All that matters is that science is not universally accepted as a "get out of jail free" card or a "do as you please in the name of science" imperative.

[Bored chemist]

    It is unreasonable to propose that scientists have no responsibility whatsoever. 

As a scientist, I have no say in how any of my ideas are subsequently used.
Since I have no authority, I can not have responsibility.

The actual answer to "Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?" is yes./
We have plenty of safeguards in science.

Unfortunately, there are none in politics.

[alancalverd]

Unless a scientist has been captured and forced to work on developing some sort of weapon or technology, then they have a choice.

Work for the government you chose, or be murdered by the government chosen by your countrymen / invading your country.  I am old enough to have been taught by men of various nationalities who fled from the Nazis to various UK factories and laboratories, Los Alamos, and the RAF.

[alancalverd]

We need only look at historical examples like the Stanford Prison experiment to see where things can go wrong if you are driven by scientific curiosity

An experiment that demonstrates a fundamental problem with human behavior cannot be considered "wrong" if it informs us of the dangers of granting authority without responsibility and accountability.  The object of scientific curiosity was to see how quickly and how badly things go wrong.

[CliffordK]

COVID?
Science & Technology brought us very effective vaccines.  Something that wasn't at all available in 1918.  Previous research also helped us identify the most likely animal vector that jumped to humans.

However, there are lingering questions that we may never quite fully know the answer whether this virus was man made, and if it was, what exactly was the goal.