The Endless Possibilities of Modern Science

Sent April 13, 2002:

Dear Herald,

I would like to respond to the commentary by Jean-Marie Lehn that appeared in your newspaper on April 7, 2002, entitled “It’s unnatural not to expand our scientific horizons”. I believe Lehn left two important details out of his argument for an all-out expansion of scientific pursuit in the West, and I would like to mention them.

First, Lehn quotes Bruller-Vercors as identifying humans as “denatured animals,” and further comments that we are “living in nature but simultaneously able to observe, investigate and question it from a distance – knowing our separateness.” As a noted scientist and Nobel Laureate, Lehn is surely aware of the fact that humans cannot attain full objectivity in their observation of the universe. No experiment can be free from distortion when the observer is within the system being observed. All human beings are in fact a part of the larger system of the universe; consequently, no human empirical study of the universe can be entirely free from subjectivity. Yet Lehn makes no mention of this hindrance in his promotion of unbridled scientific inquiry.

Further, while Lehn is quick to point out human error in the opposition to science, he fails to account for it within the realm of science itself. He makes no mention of the finiteness and fallibility of mankind as a limitation to scientific investigation while he describes the possibilities science offers. No scientific endeavor can be presented as infallible because of these obstacles. Science cannot claim 100% confidence in what it observes because of this presence of error inherent within its own system. But Lehn altogether ignores this fact.

Second, Lehn commits a critical error in his analysis of the ability of science to guide our future. He contends that it is the “fate” and “obligation” of humans to “continue this quest for knowledge” because knowledge alone has the power to enable us to “control our destiny.” The truth is, science deals only with the realm of observed data and not with the realm of ethics. Science can scrutinize the universe around us and tell us what is, but science has no voice in regard to what should be or how we are to use the information we gather empirically. As a result, science is merely a tool to be used in the hands of decision-making human beings. It can play an important role in allowing us to “control our destiny,” but because of its very nature, it cannot be our lone tool toward achieving this end. We must also have a system for converting the knowledge science gives us into an ethical framework for what we as individuals and societies should do. Without such a system, how can we know what our destiny should be? Relying on science alone, our lone pursuit will be what is possible, and by any standard what is possible is not always what is best.

In reality we as humans each come to science with some kind of pre-formulated moral system. Thus, we each interpret scientific facts in different ways. For example, some people hold that human beings are different in their very nature from every other living thing, and therefore are inherently special. This belief is the origin of the “sanctity of life” view that Lehn rejects. Others contend that human beings are special only in the sense that they have a mental acumen superior to the rest of nature, but that does not make them more special or sacred than any other living thing. Lehn and Bruller-Vercors both hold this opinion. Which view of the uniqueness of mankind is correct? Science cannot give us an answer. It can inform us of the aspects of human differentiation, but it cannot tell us what we are to believe in light of those aspects and what we are to do with that belief.

Another example is the current dilemma regarding oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Certain people argue that such drilling is needed to gain energy for the furthering of American industries and citizens. Others maintain that such drilling puts the greater world ecosystem in danger and should thus be banned. Which is the right position for our society to take? Both would further scientific development in different ways, but the difference in opinion is caused by the differing moral and ethical values that people bring to the scientific data.

These facts cannot be overlooked as we deal with the questions raised by science, especially in our age of controversy surrounding such issues as genetic research, human medical experimentation, and abortion. We cannot view science as a foolproof source of data, nor can we separate our scientific endeavours from an ethical foundation. We as a society must tread carefully as we decide where science should take us.

Thank you very much.