Scientists and Society - Obviously, scientists are human beings who "do science" that is, they investigate the world in which they live. However, as you read the biographical sketches found in each chapter of this text, you may be surprised to find out that some scientists not only gather scientific information; they also help to establish political procedures for determining the direction of science research. Decisions of this kind are often difficult.
 |
| Interaction science and society (souce: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~freeman) |
Many questions before the biological community today have moral and ethical dimensions that are very difficult to resolve. For instance, should tax-payers support research for test-tube babies? (What happens if something goes wrong: If you destroy the developing embryo, is that murder?) Who should receive an organ transplant? Should human genes be inserted in domestic animals? When academic institutions hire a scientist and provide a salary and research laboratory, who owns the results of the research? (Many of the funds for research are from taxpayers' dollars through federal agencies that provide grant money for research no one wants the research that they pay for to profit the researcher primarily.)
Focus 1.2 discusses some of the issues we face in deciding how government money should be spent on scientific research. Concerns like these have convinced many scientists that they can no longer be just scientists. They must also be politicians and In these times of worries about balanced budgets and governmental agencies that waste our money, people in the United States hear almost every day about one more way to cut federal spending, and one way is to cut federal funds for scientific research. A senator gives his "Golden Fleece"award (an honorary award for wasteful research dedicated to causes he judges unworthy of our support) to an agency that funded research on the sex life of the gypsy moth. We hear that funding for basic research is decreasing. Scientists solemnly declare that this is dangerous, and politicians say that they must be the final judge on how the taxpayers' money is spent. What's the fuss all about?
Before we can decide how we want our tax money spent, we must become familiar with two terms, applied and basic research. Applied research is research conducted with a product or a goal in mind. For in-stance, a drug company will run tests to determine the effectiveness of a certain drug against the common cold. Or a researcher in a private laboratory will try to determine ways to combat lung cancer. Basic research has no such specific goal in mind. Instead, a scientist doing basic research may be trying to determine what exactly triggers cell replication or reaction to infection. The goal is to understand the mechanism of biological function more clearly. Applied research builds on the discoveries made during basic research.
The distinction between applied and basic research is an important one, and one that is all too easy to misunderstand. Unfortunately, some individuals feel that we should support only practical or applied research because the "payoff"is much more easily grasped. After all,why would anyone be interested in the sex life of a gypsy moth (besides, of course, another gypsy moth)? With funds as tight as they are becoming, it is imperative that scientists be able to explain fully and completely the significance and importance of basic research, for if basic research is discontinued, applied research will suffer as well. In a sense, basic research is the ground breaker; applied research only plants there once the land is tamed.
It is imperative that our lawmakers understand the need for support of basic as well as applied research. Our knowledge about the types of cancer, the variety of causes, and potential cures has come from basic research on how cells function. Without that research, we would still be no closer to answers than we were twenty years ago, no matter how much applied research had taken place. Research on the life cycles of insects has resulted in techniques of dealing with farm and forestry pests, like the gypsy moth, must be responsible for the moral and ethical issues raised by some of their research. Often our answers give rise to more problems. Gone is the day when scientists could hide, cloistered in their laboratories, practically immune to the activities of the outside world. From some of our scientific knowledge have come moral and social dilemmas, and the people most involved must act responsibly. (Source: Avila, Vernon L. Biology : Investigating Life On Earth Jones and Bartlett/Bookmark Series in Biology).
Posting Komentar