Science aims tell us something about nearly everything, from the atoms in our cells to the motions of the stars. It assumes that knowledge is good for its own sake, and therefore takes as its sole purpose the acquisition of knowledge. But shouldn’t knowledge serve practical and ethical concerns, like ending conflict and feeding the hungry? Could some knowledge be interesting, but ultimately irrelevant? And isn’t there some knowledge we might be better off without, such as how to build nuclear weapons? John and Ken test their claims with UC Berkeley anthropologist Paul Rabinow. This program was recorded live at the Marsh Theater in San Francisco.
约翰一开始就说，如果没有现代科学，我们可能仍然生活在一种过时的方式中。但科学也有它的缺点，肯说，现代医学带来了细菌战;现代交通带来了环境破坏，等等。科学是一把双刃剑!但是，约翰认为，我们必须区分科学知识和应用这些知识。知识本身永远不会是坏的，即使使用知识的方式是坏的。Ken认为这是一个naïve，理想主义的区别，不能在现实世界中做出，而John认为时间和自然发展确实是区别。Ken接着说，现在的科学家个人可以很容易地保护自己不受使用和滥用他们的发现的后果的影响，而且科学家简单地把他们的专业知识和知识卖给出价最高的人是不合适的。
John and Ken welcome guest Paul Rabinow, Professor of Anthropology at UC Berkeley, Director of the Anthropology of the Contemporary Research Collaboratory, and former Director of Human Practices for the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center. He is also author of, among numerous other publications,Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. John asks Paul what, from an anthropological point of view, got him into thinking about contemporary science, to which Paul replies: What could be more exotic than Silicon Valley? He is interested in studying people who are changing the world, a principle which lines up with anthropological learning. John asks Paul for an example of a case where science has run amuck, and Paul talks about the financing of Edward Teller’s work and of the area of genomics at large. Ken suggests that maybe there was a time when one could separate the mere pursuit of scientific knowledge from applications of that knowledge; Paul agrees but add that given the complexity of the vectors pointed out by Ken, a vast amount of knowledge is currently being produced. Ken asks whether the pursuit of scientific knowledge is intrinsically morally fraught. Paul explains that “Big Science” is expensive, and the agenda of public science – that is, a medical or military purpose – is oftentimes lost in the larger system.
Paul explains to the live audience at the Marsh Theater his impression that there is not a lot of individual choice in the biosciences these days – large sums of money are involved, grant proposals take years, people work on projects that are already underway. He argues that we must look earlier on in the educational system to make a concrete change, especially in universities, where these topics ought to be raised in a more comprehensive manner. Ken asks: doesn’t a person have agency over whether they want to play a role in this machine? Paul agrees that people have a role in all areas of the scientific machine, but they do not speak out enough, and the people who do, the whistleblowers, are punished. The educational system should be more comprehensive so that in democracy people have some sense over where the truth lies and so that a political debate is not predetermined by ideology from the start.
John, Ken, and Paul welcome questions from the audience and further discuss the capacity for collective deliberation of what is good, how to curtail the effect of money on scientific research, and the general progress of science.
