Of course science is dangerous. The study of atomic physics very nearly led to nuclear war.<p>> Dangers and ethical issues only arise when science is applied as technology.<p>I mostly disagree with this sentiment. If you're a nuclear physicist, and you publish a paper about the theoretical aspects of fission chain reactions, and realize that they may allow for good things, like nuclear power, and bad things, like nuclear weapons, you have an obligation to consider the consequences of how your research might be applied by others, do the cost-benefit calculation, and decide to publish, or keep your knowledge a secret[0].<p>Of course, in the vast majority of cases (GMOs, medical research, human intelligence, etc., knock yourself out) it's probably better to publish - the benefits far outweigh any costs. But I see no reason why this has to be universally, fundamentally true - maybe there are secrets of the universe too dangerous for publication - knowledge which, if made public, would predictably lead to great destruction.<p>[0]: <a href="http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0207094" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0207094</a>
Leo Slizard is usually credited as the first to come up with the idea of weaponizing nuclear fission. Slizard was in favor of secrecy, Fermi was in favor of publication, and for a while, they kept some of their discoveries a secret. In the hindsight of history, this was probably not necessary, but at least they weighed the consequences and had the debate.
Articles like this one are coming up with similar questions from time to time. For better understanding of the origin of suspicious attitude to science in some social groups The Cultural Theory of Risk [1] is very helpful.<p>According to it "political conflict over environmental and technological risks to a struggle between adherents of competing ways of life associated with the group–grid scheme: an egalitarian, collectivist (“low grid”, “high group”) one, which gravitates toward fear of environmental disaster as a justification for restricting commercial behavior productive of inequality; and individualistic ("low group") and hierarchical ("high grid") ones, which resist claims of environmental risk in order to shield private orderings from interference, and to defend established commercial and governmental elites from subversive rebuke."<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk</a>
Super good piece. Science has a real PR problem though and that will be hard to fix, the public image of scientists is one that is mostly one of fear and distrust in spite of the visible good that science has done in almost every life.<p>The media really aren't helping here. If 40 years ago 'being a scientist' was a great thing to aspire to as a kid nowadays you're more likely to hear the same thing about kids wanting to become lawyers or politicians.<p>Never mind that the lawyers and the politicians are more often than not the anti-pode of constructive contributions to society.