Is science Progressive? -Erik Larsen

Is science progressive?

To raise awareness and provide a base to argue on this question, the definition of progressive, for the purposes of this paper, must be explained and for it, boundaries set. For the purposes of this paper, I defined progressive as one idea or discovery (made through or involving science) leading in some way, to new knowledge. In other words, to be progressive or the circumstances that create progressiveness (for this paper), are ones that move forward, with little to no limitations. Since the concepts and/or methods of science exist, on a whole, in the real world, unlike its counterpart, math, that operates in the abstract, what I mean by progressive (as stated previously), has as much to do with the definition I just gave, as the method/s used to create or discover this new knowledge, sought after by science. This implies that the ethics in the methods used through scientific endeavors, will have an impact on the progressiveness of science, as I elaborate on the question posed. However, I will also examine the method/s of science in its abstract. That is, the progressiveness of science through the idea of the scientific method, as it sits. Therefore, in my efforts to provide my side of argument to this question (with the use of relevant examples and sound arguments by other reputable sources), but by no means give a universal answer to, I will operate through the scope of the two viewpoints I explained; Is science progressive in terms of ethics in the methods used to gather new knowledge, and is science progressive in terms of accuracy regarding the abstract idea of the scientific method/s is (and how this might hinder the progressiveness of science).

What follows in the next few paragraphs will contain material assessing the main question through the first approach stated; is science progressive in terms of the ethics regarding the scientific methodology used. I would say it can be agreed upon that the main goal of science is to uncover new knowledge. This new knowledge can only be categorized under the subject that is science, though, if the newly uncovered knowledge has followed a specific set of criteria known as the scientific method. In the TOK textbook, under the chapter on The Natural Sciences, Carl Sagan is said, in this chapter, to have declared science at its heart, to be a balance between two contradictory attributes; the openness to new idea, and skeptical scrutiny. I personally would agree. But in science’s goal and the necessity we humans have created, to uncover new knowledge using the scientific method, history has shown us the extent to which the scientific *kin will go and have gone, to fulfill this necessity. In many cases, in history and still today, in fulfilling this necessity of using science to uncover new knowledge, the ethics (or what many would consider to be ethical) of how this knowledge came to be, is wiped away, set aside, or just blatantly disregarded.

*kin: (kɪn) n, A class or group with similar characteristics or views

One real life example (real life meaning just that but also meaning a current example) that raises the question of ethics came from an article published by The Scientist  titled “Johns Hopkins Sued for Guatemala Experiments”. The article, published on April 2, 2015, briefly brings up an experiment conducted in Guatemala during the 1940s (article- recent, topic- not so recent). This article’s current relevance comes about through its discussion of the recent lawsuit posed on Johns Hopkins University and similar institutions, regarding the Guatemala experiments.  Published by “HHS”(US Department of Health and Human Services), was a study titled “Fact Sheet on the 1946-1948 U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study”, which more directly covers this experiment. This is the article I will be referencing primarily onward. While doing research in Guatemala, Professor Susan Reverby came upon archived documents regarding the Guatemala experiments, conducted by one Dr. John Cutler. These documents contained, and I quote, “[...] an unethical study supported by the U.S. government in which highly vulnerable populations in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)”. Just to elaborate, if it wasn't made clear already; “intentionally infected with STDs” (intentionally being the key word here). The study was conducted between the years 1946 to 1948. The original intent of this study, that is known, was to gather research about STDs to formulate ways in which to prevent such diseases. These STDs experimented with/on where gonorrhea, chancroid, and syphilis. It wasn't until (human) patients began to get infected, that the research approach changed. Changed to direct infection of groups such as prisoners, soldiers, and the mentally ill. As if this arguably immoral and unprincipled act wasn't bad enough, the subjects infected (possibly 1,500 or more) were quote, “[...] not informed of the purpose of the study and did not provide consent”. Clearly ethics plays a major role in this unfortunate event. Though this experiment took place in the 1940s, and in today’s society it is stated (by the US government) that such abuse could not come about in research (*funded/conducted by the US government), we cannot take back the damage caused. Furthermore, it is not made aware by the study published what might have been gained from this awful experiment. Thus, we are left to judge this experiment at our own discretion. The next example I give will shed more light on the topic of ethics, as well as tie the idea of ethics through the methodology of scientific endeavours to progressiveness.  

*The safety from scientific abuse being limited to such science connected and or funded by the US government.

    

The section of the chapter (in the TOK textbook and chapter previously mentioned in the quote) regarding ethics (Ethics: scientific fraud) gives another, albeit somewhat less obvious, example of unethical outcomes and behavior, of a scientist and their methods. The example being a scientific claim made by the scientist Andrew Wakefield, in which he claimed there to be a relation between one of the most common vaccines for children and autism. Unlike the first example, the ethics, or rather the unethical element, in this example, came about from the impact this claim had. When the “new knowledge” that Wakefield claimed to have discovered was released in 1998, and the public caught wind of this, the impact of this “new (and seemingly legitimate) knowledge” caused extensive damage to the community. The damage that was done was due in part to people, parents especially, becoming fearful of having something as routine as a vaccine done of them or their children. It wasn't until 2010 that Wakefield’s study on this matter was completely discredited, having been only partially discredited in 2004 by The Lancet medical journal (who originally published Wakefield’s study in the first place). Wakefield’s claim was, in 2011, concluded by the British General Medical Council to be “irresponsible and  dishonest”. With the Council ruling, the retraction of The Lancet published piece on the matter, and the distinct lack of evidence to Wakefield’s claim, led the scientific community to rule out Wakefield’s claim. This verdict did not heal the damage done to the public fully, by any means, however, and there remain  public doubts concerning the safety of vaccines. The ethical element in this example, again, arose from the impact that Wakefield’s (false) claim that common vaccines and autism are linked, had.

Was it ethical for Wakefield to have published his study, taking into account the lack of evidence he had and what his motives might have been? And so then was it also ethical, in the first example, to experiment with STDs on live humans without their consent? With the fact that these question are nearly a whole other paper in mind, I would settle on the idea that both examples raise the question of ethics, no doubt. And the undoubted question of ethics in both examples allows me to bring up the point I want to make that relates back to progressiveness. I defined progressiveness (in science) as being assessed by taking into account the method/s used to meet the main goal of science. We see in these two examples above, that the method/s used, and even the impact the outcome had, could easily be viewed as harmful and unproductive in that respect, to society (assuming science and society, in the real world, effect one another in parallel). As such, in the way I have defined it, science loses its progressive status in (but not limited to) situation where the potential for socially negative actions/consequences, could and do arise. I would even go so far as to say that this is consistent, regardless of how valuable the information gathered (from these types of unethical scientific endeavors) may be, if taken into consideration.

Moving onward, the second approach to the main question of the progressiveness of science will be dealt with. The second approach being the progressiveness of science in terms of accuracy in the abstract idea that is the scientific method. I find it intriguing just how polar opposite this view of the main question is, compared to my first approach (given that both approaches seem similar in nature). It is also worth mentioning that, unlike the conclusion to the main question of this paper that the first approach gave way to (which was a circumstance that prevents the progressiveness of science), this second approach (may) conclude that the scientific method has had (and will continue to have until there is change in the method) permanent and fixed damper on the progressiveness of science.

Most all of us have at some point in time (for most of us, since 4th or 5th grade and onward each year) have learned the scientific method. You propose a question, make a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, analyse the data gathered, and draw a conclusion. We have all heard it before, and, while in that over sized white lab coat in your 7th grade science classroom, trying to extract DNA from a strawberry, we have all met the requirements of being a scientist as well (though not a very good one). But what I speculate is that this scientific method we have all come to know and love (hate), is actually hindering the possible discovery of new knowledge. Since the main goal of science is just that (to uncover new knowledge), any hindrance of that goal would mean science may not be reaching its full potential of progressiveness*. The one (and unfortunately only) good example I have of this theory comes from a work done by the physicist, Kuhn.

*There is no way to quantify the amount of hindrance that the idea of this approach applies to science. This is because it isn't possible to know what could have been discovered sooner or what will be discovered later i.e., we cannot know of an alternate history than the one we have and we cannot assume different outcomes could have taken place. Yet there is still evidence that the theory this approach has, contains some merit. As such, there is still an argument to be made (that the scientific method has flaws), even with this limitation.             

A chapter from the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, written by Thomas S. Kuhn give appropriate support to this approach's theory. This chapter being “Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries”. In it, Kuhn talks frequently about paradigms and paradigm change, in science (paradigm, meaning a typical example or pattern of something; a mode). Kuhn also talks about the unusual upbringing of the science behind what would later become a well known and life changing invention, x-rays. In his book, Kuhn refers to the the discovery of x-rays as “a classical case of such, through accident”. He also says that these types of discoveries (accidental ones) are, quote, “a type that occurs more frequently than the impersonal standards of scientific reporting allow us easily to realize”. It can be inferred that what Kuhn means by “impersonal standards of scientific reporting”, is the scientific method, in essence. If Kuhn says that accidental discoveries happen as frequently, if not more frequently, than ones made through the scientific method (and he does say this), then clearly the scientific method must in some way be limiting. But what element is the scientific method limiting? I believe that the scientific method is limiting our openness to explore. The individual who we credit today for the discovery of the x-ray, was none other than Roentgen, physicist in his day. And as Kuhn explains in his chapter, this “discovery”, by Roentgen, came about while Roentgen was conducting a normal investigation on cathode rays. This investigation was considered normal because Roentgen certainly wasn't the first to conduct this very experiment. Yet Roentgen was the first (known) to have actually investigated this anomaly in the routing schedule that the scientific method demands. The reason, I think, that the other investigators of this exact experiment, did not see the glow as an anomaly, or perhaps did see the glow as an anomaly but dismissed it, was all due in part to the scientific method’s lack of character which would otherwise support the further investigation of such strange actions as a glowing plate. We know that other investigators of this experiment have noticed the same anomaly Roentgen saw from the information Kuhn gives in the 6th chapter of his book; “At least one other investigator had seen that glow and, to his subsequent chagrin, discovered nothing at all”.

From all this, it can be inferred, that the scientific method has/is hindering the discovery of new knowledge. The goal of science is to discover/uncover new knowledge and any hindrance of that leads to the hindrance of science being progressive, at its full potential. From the x-ray example, the element or persona, of the scientific method, that would cause a hindrance on the ability for science to be progressive is the persona that the scientific method does not support the idea of having anomalies in experiments. We have learned to use and set independent, dependent, and control variables for each and every experiment. These factors are used meticulously such that we limit the chance for error as far down as we can go. However, in taking away the possibility for other outcomes, we become unknowing of what could have happened if x, or y, or z happened. Such as in the x-ray example, (the scientific method says) the anomaly of the glowing plate should not have happened.

Science’s progressiveness, in the two ways I looked at the question, has in those two ways, no outcome that suggests that science can be progressive, 100% of the time. But rather, there are factors that affect the progressiveness of science. I (only) explored two factors that could affect the progressiveness but there are theoretically more. However, what I found was that the ethics on the method/s used to meet the main goal of science affects its progressiveness, and the scientific methods itself is hindering the progressiveness of science.