What Do We Do With the Knowledge? As a group, research scientists are fond of pointing out that their prime professional objective is the discovery of new knowledge. Indeed, few would deny that scientists who search for understanding into the nature of the universe, whether on a microscopic or a macroscopic scale, have much to contribute to the evolution of mankind. Science is the fundamental understanding of what is; technology is the application of science-the knowing-to our lives. Science is E = me< the laws of thermodynamics, and the structure of DNA and the genetic code. Technology, on the other hand, gave us atomic bombs and nuclear energy, thermal pollution, and genetic engineering. Since there is obviously a strong component of the "things of science" in technology-methods of thinking, strategies of ex~erimentation.instrumentation-it is not
pesume; knowledge at a basic level. Applying knowledge can lead to serious problems that, in general, cannot be solved on the basis of training in science alone. P u t in another way, the training designed to help discover new knowledge is not in itself sufficient to provide insight into the effects of applying new knowledge on society. Resolution of such issues involves value judgements. This is not to imply that obtaining new scientific knowledge does not require an understanding of values, rather that the values at issue in scientific endeavors are of a different dimension. They often focus on the nature of processes, internal consistencies, and the quality of results rather than on issues incorporating human dimensions. Those components of rational thought that allow us to articulate our own personal and experential positions andgives us an insight into ethics, values, andmorals are known as the humanities. Opportunities to study the humanities are generally very limited in the educational programs of basic scientists or scientists who are interested in applying knowledge. The ommission is curious hecause doing science is a humanistic endeavor. Like the humanities, science extends our vision and enriches us. There is in the scientific effort a spirit of creative insight every bit as strong as that found in art and literature. The humanities and the sciences share a common concern
with the effect of personal bias on their respective intellectual processes. I t was discovered early on that scientific knowledge could he attained, if a t all, only through rigorous discipline that transcended every special, individual, or personal interest with regard to the specific outcome at hand. If an individual scientist had a personal interest in a particular outcome of the inquiry that outweighed his committment to find the truth of the matter, the results became suspect because finding the truth is the central aim of the scientific process. To maintain the necessary distance in science is difficult because it is not our normal stance as human beings, heavily involved in concerns that are persona social, political, etc. Maintaining that distance represents a norm wh~chmust he striven for and which reauires a considerable deal of training. All of this suggests that science is a self-critical activity with ethical roots and im~erativesthat no scientist worthy of the name can irThe imperatives of self criticism a t the personal level are also often found in the humanities. For example, F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote: To have something to say is a question of sleepless nights and worry and endless ratiocination of a subiecLof endlesslv trvine t n die out
one of many thousand journalists Eliminating the allusions to literature, one could easily imagine the auotation to he derived from a science teacher speaking to a student about science. Science is a humanistic endeavor and i t is based on faith: that there is an order in the universe, that humans can discern that order, that it is good (a value judgement) to understand that order. If science has the essential attributes of the humanities it is curious that we do not insist that our students have advantage of the insight which would allow time to develoD and articulate their ~ e r s o n a and l exneriential values within the context of science. We need to deielop methods to increase awareness of the holistic nature of all human endeavors and creativity-not the twoness of C. P. Snow's culJJL ture-but its "oneness."
Volume GO
Number 3
March 1983
175
