
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, March 11, 1995                   TAG: 9503140025
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: WILLIAM A. CURTIN
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

HARNESS, DON'T UNHITCH, SCIENCE'S POWERFUL DRIVING FORCE

IN HIS March 6 commentary (``Science, it seems, is not an exact science''), Justin Askins argued that there's no certainty in our understanding of the universe because science continually raises new questions as it provides answers to old questions. Furthermore, problems that science has brought us, such as overpopulation and pollution, outweigh its benefits, and so society should view scientists as ``little more than entertainers'' whose ``tricks'' are costly to our world.

His basic premises - that science is inherently uncertain and thus a fruitless pursuit and, hence, that science is a net detriment to society - are so ridiculous that any rebuttal would seem unnecessary. However, as Askins' opinions may reflect those of a broader audience, I provide the following counterpoint.

Since humans first walked the Earth, we've striven to understand the world around us and the heavens above. In that pursuit, humankind has continually asked questions and sought to answer them, and our success in this endeavor of science has been phenomenal. We now understand that all matter consists of just a few fundamental particles put together in a seemingly infinite variety of ways to build atoms, molecules, minerals and living organisms.

We also understand that, brand new data from the Hubble Telescope notwithstanding, there are only four basic forces in nature, among them gravity, and these forces ultimately control the motions of all objects in the universe, from subatomic quarks to the largest stars. And the answers to the remaining puzzles at the smallest subatomic level are intimately related to some remaining puzzles about the universe's origin.

Given such amazing progress, and the tremendous complexity of the questions we're now able to address due to this progress, the ``uncertainty'' suggested by Askins is remarkably limited. Granted, science is the on-going process of seeking answers to ever more difficult questions. And it's egotistical of us to imagine that we can discover all secrets of the universe, in spite of our success.

But such realizations certainly don't imply that science is fruitless or hopelessly uncertain, nor is uncertainty bad. One ``uncertainty'' Askins cited, the famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, has, in fact, guided us in the creation of quantum mechanics. These mechanics control all chemistry, and are responsible for our development of new chemicals, drugs and materials such as lasers and semiconductor chips.

Is all of this science, certain or not, detrimental to society and the world? I think not. The development of drugs and medical technology has saved us and our children from deadly epidemics (some now completely eradicated) and illnesses of our forefathers. Other technologies have increased our food production, decreased our exposure to nature, provided nearly inexhaustible sources of energy, and made life easier and much longer for many of us.

The Malthusian view of Askins - that our downfall is just around the corner - has been defeated many times in the past, and will be defeated again in the future, by the (previously unforeseen) progress of science. The downside to scientific advances lies, in my opinion, not with science itself, but with exploited technology that benefits only a few at the expense of society as a whole. This issue involves science and, more importantly, the (far less certain) area of economics and morality, particularly in capitalist societies.

Finally, aside from one's subjective view of the positive and negative aspects of science, it's absurd to consider the future, or the past, without science. At what point in the past should science have ended? At the discovery of fire? That the Earth circles the sun? Of electricity, the steam engine, nuclear reactions or genetic engineering?

It's certain society will continue to better understand the world, with or without publicly supported science, just as it has progressed for centuries so far. An anti-science view, particularly from those who don't comprehend the philosophy of science and its attendant uncertainty, is unproductive. Society should better ask how the management of science can be improved to optimize the impact of science, rather than to denigrate this powerful driving force in the evolution of mankind.

William A. Curtin is an associate professor of materials science and engineering and of engineering science and mechanics at Virginia Tech.

by CNB