 |
||||||||||||||
|
When Should Science Play God?Most detractors of science are fond of saying that scientists shouldn’t play God, that they aren’t good at it, and that the job is already filled by a much better qualified candidate. That such a glib dismissal of the need for more serious dialog is expected to pass for reasoned argument, is clearly its own self-defeating genetic flaw. Scientists do make foolish predictions and statements which in hindsight are seen as being equally nonsensical. That sobering fact is not in question now, nor has it been in the past. What such pseudo-science foolishness proves, however, is not that non-scientists are better qualified to make scientific decisions but that they are even more poorly qualified. It’s common sense that in most instances, those with a better grasp of science will hold better scientific opinions than those whose knowledge of science is little or none. Conversely, it is more likely that nonscientists will more easily distort of misreport what is accepted as scientific fact than will those whose life’s work discipline gives them a grounding in the subject being discussed. Nonetheless, even on the part of qualified scientists, there is a need, perhaps even a moral obligation, to be intelligent, to be responsible. Discussing the specific subject of agricultural biocontrols to affect marijuana, a detractor posted a web message that read: “Despite the terrible mutation risk involved, they have released this stuff into the biosphere just to see what happens.” This is a good example of the irresponsible nonsense that happens frequently when the scientifically ignorant play God themselves. First, there is no proof whatsoever that any ‘terrible mutation’ risk of Fusarium oxysporum (the pathogen being criticized) exists to threaten a modern food crop. Even though someone make bake marijuana into their cookies, marijuana is not a major food crop itself; as measured by any reasonable nutritional standards. Anyone seeking good nutrition will not choose cannabis as a food crop over better alternatives. Second, no new release of Fusarium pathogens threatens the biosphere. In fact, Fusarium pathogens are already common in the earth’s soils and have been so for centuries. That is the scientific fact. “Just to see what happens.” In other words, irresponsibly. It’s no less irresponsible to unleash words into the biosphere just o see what happens than it is to unleash pathogens whose outcome is known. Scientists do not have a responsibility others are free to ignore. Therefore, despite the choice in a web poster to call ones-self, kaptinemo, one omits the notion that the once respected fictional scientist of that name held himself to much more rigorous standards when engaging in even the wildest of scientific imaginings. That strict discipline remembered, to maintain rigorous and honest guidelines, will also assist each of us in our need for society to reach rational decisions regarding advances and applications of science. Until the human species becomes better than their Maker at playing science, we will be better off using those among us best qualified to make scientific pronouncements. And until we can count on God to show up for work and do our science for us, it’s better to have scientists playing the game than amateurs. The world is not better served by emotionalized activists playing God. Finally, just being a person who is legitimately termed a ‘scientist’ is not a blanket entitlement to hold court over all the varied realms of science. For example, medical doctors, botanists, physicists, psychiatrists, microbiologists, chemists, astronomers and many others are classified as scientists. Regarding the question at hand, using biocontrols to destroy narcotics producing plants, the essential type of scientist better able to take (through reason of education and professional background) stronger, more credible positions, is the plant pathologist. Even then, experience and methodology varies among professionals of the same discipline. In the final analysis, contentions can and should be evaluated and backed up on the basis of actual research and all the technical addendum needed to establish the validity of a premise, or to refute another contention being made by a third party. Science is done best neither by well-meaning scientists or well-meaning lay persons when all that connects them to the event in question is their well-meaningness, not the technical knowledge of the event. Scientific opinion is better than lay opinion in most cases, of course, but mere opinion on the part of either never substitutes for solid research and adequate documentation. In the case of one mycoherbicide, Fusarium oxysporum, forma speciales Erythoxyli, adequate research, testing, and defense of the technology has already taken place, and over a suitable period of time. It has also been academically well defended against accusations of Toxicity, Adverse Human Health, Host Range, Mutagenesis, Genetic Engineering and Ecology. In this specific case it seems more the lack of political will than scientific validity that has restrained this use of Fusarium oxysporum as a biocontrol for coca throughout South America.
Comments?  ©2001-2008 Public Policy Press
Website design by Packetrat Communications |
 |