Issue 40【六人行小组8.9】by odie

odiehereUID: 2502172

TOPIC: ISSUE40 - "Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
WORDS: 516          TIME: 00:46:00          DATE: 2010-8-12 上午 12:35:09

The development of our society relies heavily on innovations in science and technology made possible by scholars and researchers. Therefore, I disagree with the statement because I believe scholars shall bear in mind their great responsibility for the larger society, rather than isolating themselves in their own world of interest--though I do hope that enough freedom shall be given to scholars to make a judgement about the potential contribution that their research of interest can make to the society.

My strong belief in the importance with moral ethics and the sense of social responsibility  in the field of scientific research is based on my observance of the "double-edged sword" nature of technology. Technology, indeed, has no "sin" in itself, but the way people put it into practice has resulted in both benefits and sufferings for human beings. Even since Mary Shelley's famous yet horrible science fiction Frankenstein, modern people have been thinking seriously about the implication of scientific advancement for our society. The issue is drawing increasing public attention and put under hot debates in recent decades, when governments across nations have reach the consensus that the future of a nation is soundly determined by its scientific development, but citizens of virtually all societies are being troubled by side-effects brought about by technology advancement: heavy pollutions come along with  industrialization, social moral standards are challenged by biological and medical research like cloning and embryonic stem cell studies, social customs and living habits are affected by new technologies.  People are curious to ask: shall we allow ignorant scientists like Frankenstein to follow their crazy interests, which might overturn our world? Or shall we apply suffocating limitations on scientific research, just like what the Chinese emperors did in the 16th-19th Century, in fear of scientific disaster? Neither position, I believe, is the best option for us.  

Scholars have the responsibility to combine their interest of study and the needs of the society, and governments are obliged to encourage supervise this combination. The role of scholars is fundamental in solving the issue because they are expert in evaluating the significance of research for human beings. Therefore, adequate academic freedom shall be granted to scholars to decide independently the value of a proposed research, and the future direction of a research field. We are witnessing an increasing number of researchers acting on the part of a larger society to safeguard the ethics of scientific research. We have, for example, a large group of scientists formed in and after WWII to oppose the study and use of nuclear power for military purposes; we also have thousands of scientists devoted their study to the search for green technologies and effective ways to save our environment. The government shall act an active role in supporting the lively debates among researcher about the ethics and significance of scientific studies, in funding those research that can really benefit our society, and in preventing those that may have negative effects on our lives.

In sum, when we regard scholars as sacred builders of the future of our society, we must accordingly understand the importance of supervising the upholding of moral standards in scientific research.