Of Sharing and Humility in Science

The unique knowledge and freedom of science evoke novel responsibilities for scientists to stay tuned to, and to inspire, the desires of mankind. Scientists should be candid and honest when addressing the public and should not shun the full implications of ideas, of questions, or of the capacity for science and innovation to shape the future. For example, when members of the scientific community quote polls that show the public supports allocation of more money for basic research, they must not fail to voice the unavoidable underlying question: How much of your social security check might you be willing to sign over to science? Just how much of the present should we invest to secure what future? In President Bill Clinton's State of the Union address this year and in his comments at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he tempered his support for science with a caution to "see that science serves humanity, and not the other way around." Mildred S. Dresselhaus responded, "This disquieting sentiment--that science, like Dr. Frankenstein's monster, is poised to wreak havoc on its creator--has a currency today that should alarm us as scientists ... [and] spur us to action" (M.S. Dresselhaus, The Scientist, 12[5]:7, March 2, 1998). I believe her statement does not fully address the implications of the president's remarks. Science and technology certainly can either help or harm, depending on the wisdom, desires, or even the fortune of the user. Antibiotics have done much to improve the human condition but chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are also products of science, and they could make Frankenstein's monster look like a choirboy. Perhaps more germane to the president's quote is not fear of science creating a monster, but anxiety that the vast sums of money and human potential dedicated to science may too exclusively serve science and scientists, rather than society's needs. The scientific process in pursuit of truth and knowledge is often not readily discernible to either the general public or to policymakers. For this reason, science has rightfully been granted a great degree of freedom in determining its priorities and methods. However, the privileged knowledge and independence that science enjoys carry inherent liabilities: an element of public apprehension and a proclivity for scientific arrogance. Specialized knowledge of any subject--whether of law, literature, art, or science--has an air of elitism. The institute from which a scientist graduates, or membership in professional societies and publications, can be deserved badges of merit and rightful sources of pride. Likewise, employment at a prestigious institute, membership in the more elite science societies, publication in high-impact journals, and awards can further reward accomplishment. It is as difficult to draw the line at where healthy self-image and pride in one's profession become arrogance and egotism as it is to discern where the foothills end and the mountains begin. Arrogance is a special liability to researchers, in that it belies their situation. Scientists generally strive to expand knowledge by working from a position of incomplete knowledge or even of ignorance. Science cannot afford the arrogance of assuming that the public and policymakers should allocate vast sums of money for research to buy a future they did not fully participate in preparing. Science and society have a mutual compact, wherein science provides information and innovations that can either enrich the spirit or directly benefit society, in exchange for public financial support. Over the past century, the public has generously supported science, through both the private sector and government. Science has kept up its end of the bargain so well that a future devoid of dramatic science innovation, with major implications for how we live, is unimaginable. To continue to fulfill its compact with society, science must not just share the facts that are the foundation of science but also the possibilities that may influence the future of science and society. Society is not a silent partner and should not, nor will not, be removed from planning the future. The public and policymakers may not completely understand the scientific process, but they intuitively comprehend that the road to the future will be paved with science and innovations. It is precisely the excitement of a promised future that motivates public support for science and ensures funding of research. Whether this vision is for better health, prosperity, or merely the pursuit of happiness, science and society must share in securing the possibilities of the future. Scientists increasingly should become the catalysts for this sharing and be ever-vigilant that the self-evaluation and acclamation of scientific peer review and pressure do not regress to self-interest. Those who seek the enlightenment of the future should proceed with prudence and humility. After all, the knowledge and truths that science ultimately serves and seeks will prevail, whether born of, or in spite of, the contemporary doctrines of science. Fred Cowan is president of Uppsala Inc., a biotechnology company based in Colora, Md.

Of Sharing and Humility in Science

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of