Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Should We Always Talk About What We Know?
We have a strange fascination in the modern world with genetics as fate. Now as a Christian, I find the very idea bunk, because, of course, if the world is fallen, so likely is its genetic material. Thus even if our genetics dictate something, that does not make it correct or right , or to be surrendered to.
But setting aside the theo-philosophical discussion for a minute, I do not understand why anyone would want to surrender to the dictates of their genetics. That may make change hard, but it does not render it impossible. However, given the tendency of many people to "surrender to genetics," I wonder about the wisdom of the publication of this news, in this case, by the BBC:
There are a lot of ways one could go with commentary on something like this, but the place I want to go is the value of publishing information, particularly when the entire picture is not known.
Consider, several decades ago, research emerged that homosexuality was a genetic trait. Follow-up research has shown that while there may be a genetic component to it, it is not determinative - a tendency at best. And yet, in the wake of the early finding homosexuality as fate, based on genetics, has become near gospel in public discourse.
The dangers of atomic energy and nuclear radiation is another example. There are hazards associated with it, that is unquestionable, but it is nothing like the stuff of common public understanding. Again, early results revealed the dangers and were published, but follow-up work describing the limitations and controls for those hazards have gone largely underreported and certainly under appreciated by the public at large.
This phenomena even happens in non-scientific areas where Calvinism is written off on the basis of the "Cliff's notes version" without people taking the time to really understand something. - But I want to limit myself to scientific discussion here.
To do science, we need money. Science that does not sink to the bottom line VERY rapidly cannot be funded privately, and so, scientists everywhere turn to the government. And if the government is the source of the money, then science must be done in the full view of the public. Even privately funded results tend to go public because it is necessary to attract additional funding to keep going.
The general thought is the more informed the pubic is, the better society is. I tend to agree, but what do we do in cases like the ones I have just discussed. Nuclear energy, the lowest polluting, if most potentially acutely hazardous, method of power production has gone undeveloped in this nation for nearly 40 years now. All because of an accident that produced no real harm, and one that produced far less harm the the common generality - I should know.
It is constantly debated inside science circles how to better inform the public to avoid precisely the kinds of misconceptions here discussed. Since this blog enjoys a largely non-scientific audience, I am curious as to what the public's role in all this should be. Does the public not bear the responsibility to understand?
What have you done to make sure you fully understand what you are reading, both the facts and the limitations? And when you know you do not fully understand, do you keep your mouth shut?
Technorati Tags:science, public information, limits of knowledge
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
But setting aside the theo-philosophical discussion for a minute, I do not understand why anyone would want to surrender to the dictates of their genetics. That may make change hard, but it does not render it impossible. However, given the tendency of many people to "surrender to genetics," I wonder about the wisdom of the publication of this news, in this case, by the BBC:
Our level of happiness throughout life is strongly influenced by the genes with which we were born, say experts.Frankly, when I first read that, I wondered if the entire study is not a CYA by the psychological community to explain its less that stellar success rate. I KNOW it will be latched onto by the "woe is me, my life sucks" types out there to justify not even bothering, even given the caveats right there in the early paragraphs of the story.
An Edinburgh University study of identical and non-identical twins suggests genes may control half the personality traits keeping us happy.
The other half is linked to lifestyle, career and relationships.
However, another expert said despite the research in the journal Psychological Science, we can still train ourselves to be more content.
There are a lot of ways one could go with commentary on something like this, but the place I want to go is the value of publishing information, particularly when the entire picture is not known.
Consider, several decades ago, research emerged that homosexuality was a genetic trait. Follow-up research has shown that while there may be a genetic component to it, it is not determinative - a tendency at best. And yet, in the wake of the early finding homosexuality as fate, based on genetics, has become near gospel in public discourse.
The dangers of atomic energy and nuclear radiation is another example. There are hazards associated with it, that is unquestionable, but it is nothing like the stuff of common public understanding. Again, early results revealed the dangers and were published, but follow-up work describing the limitations and controls for those hazards have gone largely underreported and certainly under appreciated by the public at large.
This phenomena even happens in non-scientific areas where Calvinism is written off on the basis of the "Cliff's notes version" without people taking the time to really understand something. - But I want to limit myself to scientific discussion here.
To do science, we need money. Science that does not sink to the bottom line VERY rapidly cannot be funded privately, and so, scientists everywhere turn to the government. And if the government is the source of the money, then science must be done in the full view of the public. Even privately funded results tend to go public because it is necessary to attract additional funding to keep going.
The general thought is the more informed the pubic is, the better society is. I tend to agree, but what do we do in cases like the ones I have just discussed. Nuclear energy, the lowest polluting, if most potentially acutely hazardous, method of power production has gone undeveloped in this nation for nearly 40 years now. All because of an accident that produced no real harm, and one that produced far less harm the the common generality - I should know.
It is constantly debated inside science circles how to better inform the public to avoid precisely the kinds of misconceptions here discussed. Since this blog enjoys a largely non-scientific audience, I am curious as to what the public's role in all this should be. Does the public not bear the responsibility to understand?
What have you done to make sure you fully understand what you are reading, both the facts and the limitations? And when you know you do not fully understand, do you keep your mouth shut?
Technorati Tags:science, public information, limits of knowledge
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
