CUR 2002 Workshop Summaries

Home > Meetings > CUR 2002 Workshop Summaries > Research Responsibility

CUR 2002 Workshop Report

"The Social Impact of Scientific Research: Why We Must Engage the Public Dialogue"

Moderators: David S. Koetje, Calvin College; Ann M. Kleinschmidt, Allegheny College

Dave and Ann brought their expertise as molecular biologists, faculty members, and concerned citizens, to this session that focused on the practical realities of engaging the public about the value and responsibilities of science and scientists.

The session began with Dave explaining how discussion in his capstone courses often led to topics that have more to do with ethical and social implications of the use and/or abuse of new molecular biology techniques than with the science of these techniques. Alas, students noted that in the public arena such discussions tend to devolve into people yelling at each other…not listening to each other. How can scientists guide these discussions to foster true debate and searching?

Ann brought up the challenge of students seeing far beyond the basic application of the tools to get a job done (insert a new gene from one organism into another for example) and brought up many worrisome questions about humanities rights and responsibilities. Who controls the technology? For what end? At what cost to other organisms?

Dave emphasized his concern that a tendency to rely excessively on reductionism has led to less support among biotechnologists for approaches, such as Evolutionary Ecology, that emphasize systems level interactions and concentrate on emergent phenomena not apparent through investigations focusing on underlying layers of explanation. (Try talking to a condensed matter surface physicist as a chemist!)

The audience was then given a series of published excerpts outlining some examples of the intersection of science, applied science, and problems that have risen from the abuse of scientific ideas or output. Each group was asked to write down some new ideas they found in their writings and evaluate the perspective of the authors. A very lively discussion ensued…some of the excerpts where quite polemical in their critique of science! Ranging from fundamental questions about Descartes and Reductionism to practical concerns about genetically modified foodstuffs we soon found that 45 minutes was simply way too short of a time to consider these questions!

Some take-home messages: Scientists must accept and embrace the challenge that even the most basic science will have social implications. We do not live in a vacuum, and we must always be aware of the possibility that people may misuse/abuse/exploit the work that is done in ways which may very well be considered unacceptable to a majority of humans. The dangers inherent here are much like those of any process which gives people access to Power, whether it be a political faction, a religious order, or a potent new anti-bacterial drug. As with other human activities we must always strive for a balance between the individual and the group good, not to mention the good of the systems in which the human animal is embedded!

This report is my personal impression of the session and may not necessarily reflect Dave's and Ann's views. They did a great job of leading the discussion, especially considering it was a decidedly restive bunch. It was an engaging and lively session, people clearly left feeling that there was much, much more to consider and discuss.

L. Kraig Steffen
Associate Professor of Chemistry
Fairfield University
Fairfield CT 06605
lsteffen@fair1.fairfield.edu
203 254 4000 x 2254