Chapter 103 Chapter 18 The Magician and the Apprentice: Schools of Natural Science 5

5 However, from the 1970s, the outside world began to invade the field of laboratories and research laboratories more indirectly and more strongly.Because people in the world have discovered that science-based technology has become more powerful under the explosion of the global economy, and at the same time it has had a fundamental and even possible impact on the planet Earth—at least as far as the earth is the habitat of living organisms. A far-reaching effect that can never be undone.During the long years of the Cold War, people's minds and consciences were shrouded in the nightmare of a man-made nuclear war disaster.But the ecological catastrophe before us is more disturbing than nuclear.Because a world nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union can be avoided after all, and the final facts have proved that human beings have indeed escaped this catastrophe.But the side effects of scientific economic growth are not as easy to avoid as nuclear war. In 1973, two chemists, Henry Augustus Rowland and Molina, first noticed the chemicals widely used in refrigerators and newly popular spray products, CFCs (refrigerants, fluorocarbons) , has caused the reduction of the Earth's atmospheric ozone layer.Earlier, this change would have been difficult to detect, because the total amount of chemicals released in this category (CFC 11 and CFC 12) was less than 40,000 tons before the early 1950s.However, between 1960 and 1972, a total of 3.6 million tons entered the atmosphere.By the 1990s, it was already a well-known fact that the "smell layer opened the skylight" in the atmosphere.The only question now is how long, and at what rate, the depletion of the ozone layer will reach a point that even the natural repairing power of the earth cannot remedy.People also know that even if all CFCs are eliminated, it will definitely reappear. The theory of the "greenhouse effect"—that is, the uncontrollable increase in the earth's temperature due to the continuous release of large amounts of gases from man-made products—began to be seriously discussed around 1970, and became the subject of experts and scholars in the 1980s. The number one concern of politicians in common (Smil 1990).The danger in this is indeed incomparable, although sometimes it is unavoidably exaggerated.

At about the same time, a neologism coined in 1873: "ecology"—to denote the branch of biology dealing with the interrelationships between an organism and its environment—also began to acquire the "quasi-politics" for which it is now known. Meaning (E.M. Nicholson, 1970).All of this is the product of super economic growth and prosperity in the world (see Chapter 9). All kinds of troubles and worries are enough to explain why in the 1970s, politics and ideology began to surround natural science again.What's more, this kind of external pressure has even penetrated into science, and people in science have begun to further debate whether it is necessary to restrict scientific research from a practical and moral point of view.

Not since the end of theocracy have such questions been taken so seriously.Questions come from disciplines that have always had (or seem to have) direct ties to human affairs: genetics and evolutionary biology.Because in the 10 years after World War II, life science has undergone revolutionary changes under the amazing breakthrough of molecular biology.Molecular biology has revealed a common mechanism that determines the inheritance of organisms: the "genetic code". The revolutionary achievements of molecular biology are not surprising.After 1914, the idea that the phenomenon of life must and can be explained from the point of view of physics and chemistry that applies to all things, rather than some specific properties of the living body itself, has become a matter of course after 1914.In fact, as early as the 1920s, the biochemical circles of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union had proposed basic models (mostly with anti-religious intentions) to describe the possible sources of life on the surface, starting with sunlight, methane, Ammonia, water; and placing the subject on the agenda of serious scientific research—by the way, a sense of hostility to religion continues to motivate researchers in this line: Crick and Pauling are Best example (Olby, 1970, p. 943).For decades, biological research has always been driven by biochemistry, and then the weight of physics has gradually increased.Because it was discovered that protein molecules can be crystallized and then analyzed crystallographically.Scientists also know that something called "deoxyribonucleic acid" plays a central role in genetics, perhaps the key of heredity itself: it seems to be the building block of genes, the basic unit of heredity.How does a gene (or hereditary element) "create another structure exactly like it, and even transplant the mutational properties of the original gene as it is (Muller, 1951)? That is, how does inheritance happen? In the late 1930s, it became a topic of serious discussion in the academic circle. After the war—to borrow Crick’s own words—“the wonderful thing is obviously not far away.” Both Crick and Watson discovered the duality of deoxyribonucleic acid. Helical structure, and using a very beautiful chemical-mechanical model, it shows that this structure can explain the role of "gene plagiarism". This outstanding achievement, its brilliance is not due to the fact that other researchers reached the same conclusion in the early 1950s. weakened.

The revolutionary achievement of deoxyribonucleic acid, "the greatest discovery unique in biology" (Berno's words), then dominated the research of the entire life science in the second half of this century.Basically, it takes "genetics" as the central category, because Darwin's theory in the 20th century is purely based on heredity and evolution.But these two topics have always been known to be difficult, one is because the scientific model itself often has some kind of ideological function in it - Darwinism, which is influenced by the thought of British economist Malthus (Desmond/Moore , chapter 18); the second is due to scientific models, which often feed back into politics to add fuel to it - such as "Social Darwinism" (Social Darwinism). The concept of "race" is the best example of this interaction.The unbearable memory of the Nazi racial policy made liberal intellectuals (mostly scientists included) hardly dare to think about or even touch this topic.In fact, many even argue that the systematic inquiry into genetically determined differences between different human populations may not be legitimate at all, since the results of such research may encourage racist rhetoric.More broadly, in Western countries, the concept of democratic equality in the "post-fascist" era has revived the old debates about "nature versus nurture" and "nature versus nurture," that is, "heredity versus nurture." What is more important to the environment” question.Simply put, personal traits are influenced by both heredity and environment, both genetic and cultural.But conservatives are often too impatient to accept a society in which everything is predestined by genetics, that is, inequalities cannot be changed by nurture.On the contrary, those on the left who take equality as their mission and vigorously claim that all inequality can be eliminated by social means are environmental determinists through and through.Controversial battles thus broke out over the discussion of "human intelligence" (as it involved questions of selective or universal education) and were highly political in nature.The question of intelligence involves far more than the question of race, although it is also inseparable from the latter.As for how wide?Together with the revival of the feminist movement (see Chapter 10), some thinkers have gone on to claim that all differences between men and women on the "mental" and "spiritual" It is determined by the environment.In fact, it is popular nowadays to replace "sex" with "sex" with "gender", which represents "cultural and social gender", which means that "women" play their "social roles". In fact, men are no different from men, and do not belong to a different biological category.Therefore, any scientist who wants to get involved in this kind of sensitive topic knows that "he" will inevitably step into a political minefield.Even those who tread cautiously, such as Harvard's E. O. Wilson (b1929), the pioneer of so-called "socio-biology", dare not speak directly and clearly.

It is the scientists themselves who fuel the whole situation.Especially the most social disciplines in the life sciences—evolutionary theory, ecology, ethology, and various subjects that study the social behavior of animals.They are too prone to use anthropomorphic metaphors, and they are quick to apply conclusions to human beings.Sociobiologists—or those who fan the flames and further popularize their findings—say that for thousands of years before ancient times, primitive man was naturally selected as a hunter, adapting and cultivating his large size. Predatory character in living space (Wilson, ibid).This substance, through heredity, still firmly controls the existence of our society even today.It wasn't just women who were annoyed, but even historians.Evolutionary theorists have analyzed natural selection--a revolutionary claim in biology--as the result of a struggle for survival by "the Selfish Gene" (Dawkins, 1976).As a result, even those who agree with "hard-line" Darwinism can't help but feel at a loss. What is the relationship between genetic selection and human self-centeredness, competition and cooperation?So science is once again under siege of criticism, but meaningfully, this time not from traditional religions, with the exception of fundamentalist groups—whose opinions are intellectually trivial.Nowadays, those in the clergy have also accepted the leading position from the laboratory, and try to find comfort in accordance with theological teachings from the scientific cosmology and astronomy.The so-called "big bang" theory, in the eyes of believers, isn't it evidence that the world was created by a certain god?On the other hand, the Western cultural revolution in the 1960s and 1970s also launched a "neo-romantic" and irrational strong attack on the scientific worldview, and it can change from radically advanced to a new one at any time. Be conservative and reactionary.

But the central bunker of pure research in "hard" science, unlike the life sciences that fight field battles on the periphery, is rarely moved by external attacks.This situation did not change until the 1970s.For it is increasingly clear that scientific research cannot be separated from the almost immediate social consequences of its technology.The real and immediate trigger for the debate on whether scientific research should be restricted was "genetic engineering"—which necessarily includes genetic engineering of humans and all other forms of life.For the first time in history, even scientists themselves voiced such doubts, especially within the biological community.Because up to now, some technological elements that are fundamentally self-defeating have been inseparable from "pure research", let alone the incidental effects that arise after the fact.In fact, they are fundamental research itself—the task of the Genome project, for example, to map all the genes that humans have inherited.These criticisms severely undermine the fundamental principle that has long been regarded as central to science by all scientists (and is still held by most scientists), namely, that, except in the most marginal areas, some concessions must be made to the moral beliefs of society. In addition, science should follow the footsteps of research pursuits and strive to pursue the truth. As for how the results of scientific research are used by non-scientists, scientists are not responsible.But today in the 20th century, as an American scientist said in 1992: "Among the molecular biologists I know, there is no one who does not make some money bets on the biotechnology industry." (Lewontin, 1992, p .37; pp.31-40) to quote another: "The state of (ownership) is at the heart of everything we do." (ibid, p.38) The so-called pure plausibility of science, Doesn't it make people more suspicious?

The crux of the problem today is not the pursuit of truth, but its inseparability from its conditions and its consequences.At the same time, the main debate is between being pessimistic or optimistic about humanity.Those who believe that scientific research should be limited or self-limiting, their basic assumption is that according to the current situation of human beings, it is not enough to deal with the huge ability in their hands to change the earth; Even the high risk involved lacks the ability to identify.Even the magicians, who resisted every restriction, could hardly trust their disciples and grandchildren.The so-called endless pursuit, they said, "refers to basic scientific research, not to the technological application of science, which should be limited." (Baltimore, 1978)

In fact, these controversies are irrelevant at all.Because scientists all know that scientific research is by no means boundless and completely free.Not to mention anything else, the research itself must rely on the provision of limited funds, and it can be understood.The question, therefore, is not whether someone should tell scientists what to do and what not to do; it is who and by what criteria should suggest limits and directions.In fact, for most scientists, their research units are often directly and indirectly paid by public funds, so the power of supervision is in the hands of the government.But no matter how sincerely the government is committed to the value of free research, its trade-offs are, of course, different from those considered by Planck, Rutherford, or Einstein.

The standard of government choice, according to the a priori definition, is not the priority of "pure" research itself-especially when such research is expensive-not to mention that after the end of the global boom, even the wealthiest countries will have less income. No longer keep climbing, ahead of their spending, everyone has to start budgeting.And its measure is not and cannot be the sequence of "applied" research - although most of the scientists are employed in it.Because in general, such studies are not motivated by "expanding knowledge" (although that may be incidental); treatment method.Here, researchers pursue topics that are not necessarily those they are personally interested in, but that have social functions or economic benefits—at least, those research subjects that have money for them (although they may secretly hope that these work can take them back to basic research).Under such circumstances, if we continue to make high-pitched claims, advocating that human beings are things, we naturally need to "satisfy our curiosity, exploration, and experimentation" (Lewis Thomas in Baltimore, p. 44). Restriction, whether it is tolerable or unbearable.Or rhetoric, thinking that the peak of the mountain of knowledge must be climbed for no other reason—to borrow the words of a typical mountaineering fan—"because they are there."This is really just playing with rhetoric.

The truth of the matter is that the ocean of "science" (the so-called science, most people refer to the "hard" natural science) is too vast, and its power is too great.Its function cannot be lacked by the society and its sponsors, so it cannot be allowed to think of itself and act on its own.The antinomy of the state of science is that the technological powerhouses of the 20th century, and the scale of economic achievement that resulted from them, increasingly depended on a relatively small number of scientists.But in the mind of the latter, the enormous consequences of its activities are secondary considerations, sometimes even bordering on insignificant.For them, it is not enough for humans to land on the moon, or to send images of a Brazilian football match to a satellite, and then transmit them to a screen in Dusseldorf, Germany for people to watch. Excitement is far less interesting than the following discovery: While looking for the solution to the phenomenon of propagation interference, it was unexpectedly found that there are indeed background noises from some celestial bodies, thus confirming a certain theory about the origin of the universe.However, like the famous ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes, scientists know that they live in a world that they do not understand and do not care what they do; they actually have a part in the formation of this phenomenon.Scientists cry out for research freedom, but like the protest of Archimedes, who designed weapons for his city Syracuse to defend against the enemy, it is meaningless to the soldiers of the invaders-the enemy soldiers, to his voice Regardless of ("For God's sake, don't mess up my geometric diagram."), kill him alone--his intentions, although understandable, are not necessarily practical.

The only thing that can protect them is the key in their hands, the golden lock that can unlock the great ability to change the world.Because the exertion of this power seems to depend more and more on this small group of elites who are puzzling to outsiders but possess their special gifts, and let them make full use of it-compared with ordinary people, they have less external power and wealth. Less interesting (although that changed in the later part of the 20th century), but still no less incomprehensible.All countries that did not act in this way in the 20th century regret it.Therefore, all countries have spared no effort to support scientific development.Because unlike art and most humanistic activities, scientific research cannot be carried out effectively without such maintenance and support, although it also tries to avoid external interference as much as possible.However, the government has no interest in ultimate truth (except those who establish a country based on consciousness or religion), and the object of their concern is only instrumental and instrumental truth.They are also willing to fund projects of "pure" research (i.e., research that is useless right now) only because someday, that research may lead to something useful.Or, to preserve the country's reputation.Because even today, the importance of pursuing the Nobel Prize, after all, is still prior to the Olympic medal, it is a very important honor in the world.Therefore, this is the foundation upon which the triumphant construction of scientific research and theory today is established.Only by relying on them, the 20th century will be remembered by future generations as a century of human progress, not just an era of human tragedy!