Science Forums 2

[Tormod]

Sundog, a good argument but I would also point out one important question when it comes to the "life saving treatment" issue.

The question is: "Will it work?"

Scientists, or more importantly the marketing departments in big science laboratories, often tend to use the "this will save lives" argument but as in any other walk of life (like, say, in business) you would always ask for some indication of expected "return on investment" (ROI).

When someone wants to kill animals or try out toxins in nature or anything harmful at all they must always ask if the end result will really work. WILL this help save the person(s) in question?

As for the stem cell debate, I for one am very much in favor of allowing stem cell production for research and medical use. But there is still much we don't know.

So to respond to Freethinker's post I'd say science isn't good or bad. Science is a tool, a process. However, people's intentions when using science or calling upon scientific evidence as pillars of truth, may be more or less valid. When a shampoo manufacturer states that some stupid, unnecessary effect (like "works with the molecules inside your hair to produce a long lasting shine") is "scientifically" proven but offer no evidence for this (and even after having tested the shampoo on animals who suffered or died) - that is a misuse of the term "scientific".

They could as well have written "We spent a billion dollars on testing this and it will work but the side effects, if you experience them, may lead to hair loss and scalp problems" which would be more honest, more likely, and more understandable. But it wouldn't sell more shampoo.

Have science changed human nature? I think the answer to that one is that without science, we would not be human. Science did not start a few millenia ago - when farming was adopted tens of thousands of years ago that was science, too (finding crops that yielded the best results in the different types of ground available, year after year).

Tormod