Comments on: Science Studies: Cheerleader, Marketer, or Critic? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3824 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: replica-watch http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3824&cpage=1#comment-4632 replica-watch Fri, 19 May 2006 18:22:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3824#comment-4632 <strong>replica-watch</strong> replica-watch

]]> By: daublin http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3824&cpage=1#comment-4631 daublin Fri, 19 May 2006 08:33:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3824#comment-4631 "Science fiction in general, Star Trek notwithstanding, exploits general human fear of the unknown." Yow, that is not true at all. The science fiction I have read is filled with wonder. David Brin's Uplift Series? Asimov's... anything? Ann McCaffrey's ship singers? The list goes on and on. The books I have read and shows I have watched exploit wonder far more than fear. Anyway, I vehenemently disapprove of any claim that scientists should speak and everyone else should just listen. A cornerstone of science is that the arguments must be convincing on their own. “Science fiction in general, Star Trek notwithstanding, exploits general human fear of the unknown.”

Yow, that is not true at all. The science fiction I have read is filled with wonder. David Brin’s Uplift Series? Asimov’s… anything? Ann McCaffrey’s ship singers? The list goes on and on. The books I have read and shows I have watched exploit wonder far more than fear.

Anyway, I vehenemently disapprove of any claim that scientists should speak and everyone else should just listen. A cornerstone of science is that the arguments must be convincing on their own.

]]> By: Eric http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3824&cpage=1#comment-4630 Eric Sat, 13 May 2006 15:34:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3824#comment-4630 "The average person, even the average educated person, relies on entertainment as his primary source of scientific information." Wow. I am stunned by this statement. Can I get some documentation on this "fact"? “The average person, even the average educated person, relies on entertainment as his primary source of scientific information.”

Wow. I am stunned by this statement. Can I get some documentation on this “fact”?

]]> By: Ben http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3824&cpage=1#comment-4629 Ben Fri, 12 May 2006 17:38:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3824#comment-4629 Winner says, "Indeed, there is a tendency for career-conscious social scientists and humanists to become a little too cozy with researchers in science and engineering, telling them exactly what they want to hear..." Could he have it somewhat backwards? Social scientists and humanists may lack the depth of technical knowledge in order to properly frame the ethical discussion of a particular area of research. This being the case, they are dependent on the scientists, who are free to emphasize the benefits of their work while dismissing potential dangers, for such understanding. In any case, I fear that both Caplan and Winner are overly generous as to the capacity of the public to fully appreciate the scientific risks and benefits of genetic engineering and nanotechnology. The average person, even the average educated person, relies on entertainment as his primary source of scientific information. Michael Chriton has been discussed on this site before for his mischaracterization of climate science in "State of Fear." Let's not forget that his hostility towards the fields of genetic engineering and nanotech. are apparent in "Jurassic Park" and "Prey" respectively. Science fiction in general, Star Trek notwithstanding, exploits general human fear of the unknown. It is this same unknown that motivates scientists. Greater transparency regarding the research and development of new technologies in the public and private sectors are more than likely to be mischaracterized by those standing to lose from such technology and the largely science illiterate public will believe the worst, because thats what they've been taught to expect. Winner says, “Indeed, there is a tendency for career-conscious social scientists and humanists to become a little too cozy with researchers in science and engineering, telling them exactly what they want to hear…”
Could he have it somewhat backwards? Social scientists and humanists may lack the depth of technical knowledge in order to properly frame the ethical discussion of a particular area of research. This being the case, they are dependent on the scientists, who are free to emphasize the benefits of their work while dismissing potential dangers, for such understanding.
In any case, I fear that both Caplan and Winner are overly generous as to the capacity of the public to fully appreciate the scientific risks and benefits of genetic engineering and nanotechnology. The average person, even the average educated person, relies on entertainment as his primary source of scientific information. Michael Chriton has been discussed on this site before for his mischaracterization of climate science in “State of Fear.” Let’s not forget that his hostility towards the fields of genetic engineering and nanotech. are apparent in “Jurassic Park” and “Prey” respectively. Science fiction in general, Star Trek notwithstanding, exploits general human fear of the unknown. It is this same unknown that motivates scientists. Greater transparency regarding the research and development of new technologies in the public and private sectors are more than likely to be mischaracterized by those standing to lose from such technology and the largely science illiterate public will believe the worst, because thats what they’ve been taught to expect.

]]>