Who Benefits Most from Science?

The general public tends to perceive science as finite, uninspired, and objective. It is believed that scientists repeat tasks, as an office worker might, until a solution is found. The discovery provides a benefit, whether economic or intellectually. However, scientists agree there is a large variance in how the benefits of scientific discovery are perceived amongst the public and amongst scientists. Despite this, it is not a simple and universal divide in opinion. Scientists have very different views amongst each other of the methodology of science and who it is meant to benefit.

Stuart Firestein, neuroscientist and professor at Columbia University, expresses his belief in his book, Ignorance: How it Drives Science, that scientific discovery requires embracing ignorance to find answers. Firestein claims that science is like searching for a light switch to find a black cat in a black room (2). Scientists are ignorant of the answers and can do nothing but question and probe until they find it. Furthermore, according to Firestein, ignorance “leads us to frame better questions, the first step to getting better answers” (7). In other words, by forcing scientists to continually question what they hope to find, ignorance in science drives more science; that scientific discovery has no final endpoint and will cyclically repeat, to the benefit of the scientists. Scientists are not working to solve a task to benefit the public, they are discovering and questioning in ignorance because of their insatiable desire for knowledge.

Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician, provides yet another viewpoint in his article, The Scientist as Rebel. Dyson claims that science cannot be understood by the public unless the scientists behind the discoveries are treated as artists, who are left to their own devices and methods. There is no one way to force scientists down an efficient path towards discovery. Forcing them to do so is like reducing science to the known equations, which reduces an abstract into something simplified that limits discovery (Dyson 800). Directly rebuking the public’s belief, Dyson states, “Science flourishes best when it uses freely all the tools at hand, unconstrained by preconceived notions of what science ought to be” (805). By leaving scientists to their own methods, the chance of a revolutionary discovery increases significantly.

Shreyas Vissapragada, an undergraduate student of astrophysics at Columbia University, poses a different view in his essay, Pure Science: An Old Name with Some New Ways of Thinking. Vissapragada believes in a concept known as “pure science”. Pure science is a type of science that is done “purely for the sake of learning about the world in which we live” (1). Vissapragada believes that there is no particular economic or intellectual goals in science, rather, these are benefits that come naturally as a result of scientific discovery (5). Scientists and those who fund them should seek to achieve the widest scope for discovery and innovation, rather than focusing on short term economic benefits. While the public sees these benefits as the goal of making scientific discoveries, Vissapragada sees them benefits as a positive side-effect of intellectualism amongst the population as a result.

It is unanimous amongst these three sources that the public has got it wrong. Whereas the public believes that the goal of science is to provide benefits to society, it is clear from the words of Dyson, Firestein, and Freeman that science is performed to enhance the understanding of the world. Where the benefits are best distributed remains as a significant point of discussion. Whereas the public sees it as a means to economic gain, the three scientists cannot come to a consensus on who benefits from the methods described in each of their papers. Dyson and Firestein believe that science benefits the scientist and his immediate field first and foremost, Vissapragada believes that scientific discovery inspires an intellectualism in the general public that provides economic benefit in the long-term. Vissapragada is the only non-scientist amongst the three, which may indicate why the difference in opinion exists. It is important to note, however, that all three reject the notion that a discovery has a definite conclusion; they believe that scientific discovery is a never ending process that builds upon previous discoveries. Though the beliefs deviate past this point, it is clear connections must be made between the deviations as well.

The discrepancy in the opinion of the public and scientists discussed earlier is merely due to a lack of understanding between the two groups, as discussed in Dyson’s article. It is clear that scientific discovery benefits scientists and the public alike. Relativism must be abandoned when viewing these benefits, similar to Dyson’s claim that relativism must be abandoned when viewing science, instead seeing scientists as human as well (805). Scientific discovery inspires intellectualism in society, as Vissapragada claims. This intellectualism provides the insatiable desire for answers Firestein describes in the introduction to his book. Thus, a revolving door of scientists is created, which benefits the public economically as discoveries make things cheaper and easier. Each group should take care to understand the other’s needs and try to work as one human group, as an advancement in science is an advancement for all.

Upon re-reading my essay, I found radical revision was not needed. I found that my paper was fluid and coherent, a sentiment shared in Jason and Wesser’s peer reviews. My paper was, for the most part, good, but one large change was needed. In my introduction, I state that there is argument amongst scientists very clearly. However, in my paper, the original order of points was Firestein, a scientist, Vissapragada, a student, and then Dyson, another scientist. By swapping the places of Dyson and Vissapragada’s arguments, I feel that the conversation flows more smoothly, as there is first a debate between scientists then an outsider opinion. Aside from this change, minor edits in wording and phrasing were made to make things more concise. A few sentences were sacrificed as they were merely restatements of previous sentences.

 

Works Cited

“Introduction.” Ignorance: How It Drives Science, by Stuart Firestein, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 1–9.

Dyson, Freeman. “The Scientist as Rebel.” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 103, no. 9, Nov. 1996, pp. 800–805.

Vissapragada, Shreyas. “Pure Science: An Old Name with Some New Ways of Thinking.” The Morningside Review, 2014, pp. 1–10.