Science "going too far"?
There has been some discussion in the previous post about whether or not science can 'go too far'. My take on this has been that science is the collection (verb) of knowledge and thus cannot be unethical, and that the problem lies in the application of that knowledge (technology). Kristen and Dave wondered whether cloning research itself (i.e., studying stem cells) can be considered questionably ethical because we don't know how that research can be applied. To which I said bah![1]
Now, how about this guy?
J.P. Rushton has been causing a stir in the scientific community and generally making me grumpy for years.
Part of Rushton's impressive vitae is a questionable (and questioned) line of research examining differences in intelligence[2] between Asian, Caucasian, and Black people. His conclusions boil down to: Asians are smart, Blacks are dumb, and White folks are in the middle (juuuuust right, perhaps?).
Is this an example of 'science going too far'?
I have claimed that science cannot go too far as it is simply the collection of knowledge, and that the application of this knowledge is where things can potentially go kablooie. However, this is a case where:
a) I can't see the benefit of this research (though maybe someone can explain it to me).
b) I CAN see a HUGE potential for abuse, both by people who understand this research AND by those who don't understand it.
c) I can't see what the motivation is for this research. What questions are we answering in this line of research?
On the one hand, Rushton's research is probably the most thorough examination of the relationship between race[3] and intelligence. And I would argue that we don't always need to have a practical application in mind when we do research. Basic research is often conducted for the sole (and important) purpose of furthering our knowledge in an area, with the hope of linking that information with other information in the future. And that is worthwhile research. Sometimes we don't know where a line of research will take us, or who will do what with the results. Kudos to Rushton if he understands that concept.
However, in this case, I can only think of negative applications of these results. I am not sure what would drive someone to invest SO MUCH ENERGY into demonstrating intelligence differences between races. Rushton has spent decades (and presumably a lot of research money) working to show racial differences in intelligence, and sexual and criminal behaviour.
But wait, there's more!
When I was in Illinois, studying Psychology at a very well-respected school, every couple of years a miniature version of Rushton's book[4] would mysteriously show up in the mailboxes of all the grad students. I'm not sure who put them there, whether Rushton himself mailed them out or some eager local brought them by, but what could possibly be the point of mailing out unsolicited collections of research claiming to prove that blacks are inferior? This is not a common practice. Every time these showed up, there were piles of them in the garbage can.
So, you decide!
Ruston: A man of science or a man obsessed with carefully examining the precise correlation between the vague concept of intelligence and the vague concept of race?
Notes:
[1] This is the Ebenezer Scrooge 'bah' not to be confused with the Dolly the sheep 'baah'.
[2] Whatever that is.
[3] Whatever that is.
[4] Rushton's mini-book was like a little bible, except with even more potential to make people hate eachother.
posted by jay_morris @ 6:36 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
You've correctly hit the nail on the head when you make the claims that knowledge itself is nonethical, it's the application of knowledge that has ethics. On the assumption that Rushton's research has been done within the guidelines of accepted scientific priniciples (hypothesis, test, prove/disprove), then there's no ethical question in that. Taking that research and jamming it down someone's throat or mailbox, is of course an ethically questionable action.
With regards to the purpose of doing research without any clear idea of it's application, I'd like to share an example.
Hermann Gunther Grassmann (b1809) is the arguable inventor of what's known today as Linear Algebra (see http://www.maths.utas.edu.au/People/dfs/Papers/GrassmannLinAlgpaper/GrassmannLinAlgpaper.html)
His research had no practical application in it's day and was often scorned as wasteful. Grassman himself acknowledged this, though was hopeful for it's benefits, when he said: "that even if this work should again remain unused for another seventeen years or even longer, without entering into the actual development of science, still that time will come when it will be brought forth from the dust of oblivion and when ideas now dormant will bring forth fruit"
Indeed, it wasn't until the 20th century when it's realworld applications were found in the plenty. One application is found by anyone living in a large city today, when they drive through a busy intersection. Most modern traffic lights are controled by computer systems using Linear Algebra to control traffic flow effeciently. (Further realworld applications can be found at: http://www.stetson.edu/~gwilliam/linear.htm)
Good example Jeff! One other way that algebra emerges from dusty oblivion to 'bring forth fruit' can be seen in the computer scheduling programs that organize the efficient shipments of oranges up here from Florida. HAR!
Unfortunately, as a Western grad, I recognised Rushon's name immediately :( Instead of asking whether or not his research is valuable for the sake of following the scientific method, should we instead ask (especially in this time when - generally accepted - valuable causes such as Cancer, Diabetes, and Heart & Stroke, foundations, are begging for research money)(not to mention environmental causes which is a whole different issue, but still needs scientific research) who is paying for all this research!!!! And how is it that we can afford to allocate our resources in this manner? This is one of those times where purple and proud don't fit well together
Lisa
Post a Comment
<< Home