We study the world but what we understand may not be applied in the same place it was learned from and may not even be used in the same way. Which is actually rather fascinating since it makes a strong case for interoperability of scientific ideas.
We don’t really understand where exactly a lot of the research we do will lead us but we do it anyway in the hope and search for progress – the fundamental reason for being of science – an understanding (a complete understanding) of the world and all it’s inhabitants. Now how we use a lot of research results tends to be counterproductive – like eugenics (though I don’t exactly know how else they could’ve used the idea of genes at that time). Or so many other ideas that were believed to be revolutionary for their time but caused a great amount of harm in the future. A recently read thought spoke about how the Chinese enjoyed using gunpowder to make fireworks and then the Western man came took the gunpowder and found a way to murder people with it. You would think we would know better than to kill our species but you would be surprised at all the evolutionary tactics and protocol we fail to follow. We’re kind of dumb that way really(#that’s a reference to one of the first few Calvin and Hobbes strips where Hobbes has been trapped thanks to a tuna sandwich and says tigers are kind of stupid that way in terms of wanting tuna; if you got the reference I like you).
The question I really wanted to ask through this article was whether research should be more meticulous about how it could be used and whether the positive would trump the negative or vice versa and whether in response to that certain ideas aren’t made public. Is that a violation of something? I can’t think of anything.
Tell me what you think.