11-21-2004 07:37
Science is usually thought of as being "neutral" towards both politics and ethics. Knowledge is not dangerous in itself; applying it certainly is. There is no question that Science is and has been manipulated in all possible forms for power struggles.

Still, most scientists would prefer that their work is considered "neutral" - while Einstein worked on the Relativity Theories, he certainly was not thinking in designing nuclear weapons. Others, like Alfred Nobel, invested all their work into applying their knowledge to design better weapons.

Is scientifical knowledge dangerous in itself? Should we regulate scientists' activities? Is this kind of "moralistic regulation" somehow constraining in terms of allowing scientific knowledge to expand and provide us with better tools? (Think about the current limitations imposed on human cloning or working with human faetus, or the way the Roman Catholic Church stiffled scientific knowledge until the Rennaissance)

Hosted By: Gwyneth Llewelyn (just replacing Eloise Pasteur for today)

Date: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:00PM

Time: 2:00PM - 3:00PM (60 minutes)

Category: Discussion

Cover Charge? No

Location: Tawhaki (200, 200)
_____________________