Technology is a double-edged sword, and the actual development and use of technology does not necessarily bring positive value to people, which is generally accepted by academic circles even in countries where scientism prevails. However, people think that science, as knowledge, is only the existence of ideology, and only when it is used and turned into reality can it have direct consequences and functions, so as to talk about whether there are negative effects. Scientific research includes pure scientific research and applied research. Pure science is value-neutral, so there should be no forbidden zone, because forbidden zone means the end of science. Applied research leads to good or bad problems, and the negative effects are caused by technology, not science. Therefore, it is unfair to say that "technology is a double-edged sword". No wonder some people plausibly ask: where is the negative effect of science?
In today's highly integrated science and technology, it is wrong to ask whether the complete separation of science and technology is really feasible, whether the idea of using science and technology as a tool is superficial or not, and whether the value load of scientific knowledge is involved. Because it ignores the fact that scientific research activities must contain people's activities to transform nature, although it may be far smaller in scale than engineering and technical activities. If scientific knowledge, as an ideology, can't produce actual effect directly, then at least the scientific experiment that controls and interferes with the research object to acquire knowledge is a kind of technical activity in some way, and it is this realistic material effect that is the real value of scientific experiment. Therefore, the reality and material effects of scientific experiments are indispensable and cannot be eliminated. So it also applies to science in principle.
In fact, scientific experiments may often bring negative effects, such as nuclear tests, microbial experiments, experiments involving toxic chemicals, and even controversial experiments of planting genetically modified crops in the field. Scientists have long recognized this possible danger from experience and often make strict regulations to prevent it. For example, the famous Asilo International Conference in Malaysia, some scientists with conscience gave early warning signals about the possible dangers of emerging genetic engineering experiments.
In the early stage of scientific development, because the scale of scientific research is relatively small, the research objects are familiar and common objects, and it is difficult for scientific research activities to have a noticeable impact on nature and society outside the laboratory, so people often ignore the negative impact of scientific research activities themselves. However, nowadays, scientific development has completely turned this neglect into an unforgivable mistake. For example, Martin J. Rees, a professor at Cambridge University, thinks in Our Last Hour that human beings have advanced to such a position that we are now our greatest enemy: in addition to the natural disasters that have been threatening us, we have also joined science and technology. Modern science and technology have greatly amplified the power of individuals or small groups, so that a mistake in the laboratory can lead to a catastrophe and bring serious damage that only nuclear war maniacs in the last century can imagine. In fact, he once bet $1,000 that there would be a bioterrorism attack or biological accident before 2020, which would kill one million people. Reese's estimate may not be accurate, but scientific experiments and related facilities and materials may be the source of danger.
In addition to the catastrophic threat that the scientific research process may bring to human society, scientific research may also bring negative effects in other aspects, which also need people's attention, control and guidance. For example, scientific research activities require a lot of social resources. If we blindly increase investment in scientific research regardless of social affordability, it may affect the input of resources in other aspects of society. For example, even the United States, the world's largest power, thinks that the superconducting collider is too expensive and has to dismantle the projects that have been started and invested a lot of money. This is a typical case of a typical society intervening and controlling scientific research.
Another negative effect of scientific research is the harm of medical and biological experiments to experimental animals and human bodies. Strictly speaking, Nazi doctors and doctors of the Japanese militarist 73 1 unit are also scientific research activities, and the results are also of scientific value, even very important, otherwise Americans will not exchange these research materials for harboring these heinous criminals. However, we still believe that their scientific research activities are contrary to human ethics and are downright criminal acts, which should be condemned by conscience and punished by law, because here, the desire for knowledge and even the enthusiasm for scientific research cannot go beyond the basic ethical provisions that do not harm human beings.
If there are few scientific experiments that harm the human body, it is a common fact that scientific experiments that harm animals. Although we can emphasize the importance of many animal experiments to human health care, these experiments directly lead to the death and suffering of a large number of animals, not to mention that quite a few experiments are unnecessary and can be replaced by other methods. With people's continuous recognition of animal rights and welfare concepts, these negative effects of animal experiments are becoming more and more obvious.
To avoid and minimize these negative effects, of course, we must first rely on the efforts of the scientific community and the improvement of scientific knowledge. But these are obviously not enough. First of all, no matter how science develops, the risks contained in scientific research activities cannot be completely eliminated, and even with the development of scientific research activities, the risks may develop further. Second, due to their own conflicts of interest, they may not be the best candidates to manage this risk. For example, strict management may cost money, delay time, affect the progress of scientific research and thus fall behind competitors. Rice believes that scientists sometimes think more about the relationship between the public and the public, but they don't tell us the dangers we face truthfully. If the related accidents happen many times, even if they don't talk about the social impact, it will be disastrous in terms of public trust in science.
The logical conclusion that scientific activities have negative effects is that scientific activities must be carried out under the guidance of ethical principles, and scientific research activities are not without forbidden areas. It is probably unreasonable to leave all the things that are so important to human safety to the scientific community for microbial research, toxic chemistry research and nuclear science research that may bring serious disasters, and the public has no right to supervise and understand. Therefore, in order to avoid scientific research activities,