Sadkghjdfhgjghg
Should there be any limits placed on science?
P1) In the recent Spiderman blockbuster movie, we see at first hand how science can create a force of evil in the form of the Lizard. The preoccupation of science is first and foremost with what could be created, as opposed to what should be. This amoral quality of science makes it such that we need to have certain safeguards in place, in case the outcome of science tends towards the malevolent and undesirable. Nevertheless, we need to be wary of overdoing this, in case we deprive ourselves of the potential benefits science can bring. Too many limits can inhibit creativity and make it difficult to attract talent. Besides, not all scientific research is so controversial that controls are required. Hence, I feel that there should not be too many limits placed on science.
(note your stand cannot say NO limits!)
P2) Detractors would argue otherwise that limits are necessary to prevent dangerous scientific inventions from ending up in the wrong hands. - e.g. nuclear weapons ending up in hands of terrorists like Osama
P3) Another point often cited by detractors is that research can be an expensive affair, hence there needs to be some control over the funding. - for private sector research, there needs to be a cap as it is profit-driven - for research funded by govt, there needs to be accountability to taxpayer’s money, hence cannot have wastage on unnecessary expenditures… - e.g. space research (N. Korea spent US$1 billion on a space satellite that crashed!); biomedical research where S’pore spent billions investing in the building of the biopolis to create the infrastructure for the research to take place
P4) Granted, the above views are valid concerns. But we should also be wary of imposing too many limits on science. (note up-sized burger)
|Firstly, it is important not to forget that the outcomes of scientific research can greatly benefit mankind. |
P1) In the recent Spiderman blockbuster movie, we see at first hand how science can create a force of evil in the form of the Lizard. The preoccupation of science is first and foremost with what could be created, as opposed to what should be. This amoral quality of science makes it such that we need to have certain safeguards in place, in case the outcome of science tends towards the malevolent and undesirable. Nevertheless, we need to be wary of overdoing this, in case we deprive ourselves of the potential benefits science can bring. Too many limits can inhibit creativity and make it difficult to attract talent. Besides, not all scientific research is so controversial that controls are required. Hence, I feel that there should not be too many limits placed on science.
(note your stand cannot say NO limits!)
P2) Detractors would argue otherwise that limits are necessary to prevent dangerous scientific inventions from ending up in the wrong hands. - e.g. nuclear weapons ending up in hands of terrorists like Osama
P3) Another point often cited by detractors is that research can be an expensive affair, hence there needs to be some control over the funding. - for private sector research, there needs to be a cap as it is profit-driven - for research funded by govt, there needs to be accountability to taxpayer’s money, hence cannot have wastage on unnecessary expenditures… - e.g. space research (N. Korea spent US$1 billion on a space satellite that crashed!); biomedical research where S’pore spent billions investing in the building of the biopolis to create the infrastructure for the research to take place
P4) Granted, the above views are valid concerns. But we should also be wary of imposing too many limits on science. (note up-sized burger)
|Firstly, it is important not to forget that the outcomes of scientific research can greatly benefit mankind. |