Science has itself become a kind of religion." –Carl Sagan
I stumbled across this quote and thought it would be a great first topic. These words really describe what I have been feeling for a long time. For those who don't know me, I obtained my Bachelors and Masters of Science a few years ago in Microbiology & Immunology, thus my "official background" is science. The reason I chose to focus on this quote is the current overwhelming reliance on scientific research to answer and justify EVERYTHING.
One example is genetics. Why are some people overweight? Fat gene. Why are there alcoholics? Alcoholism gene. If you survey headlines in the last 10 years you will find reports on a so-called "anger gene", "depression gene", etc. Next time you are staring at a Google search page type in any random affliction and the word "gene". My guess is 50% of the time you will come across a published study!
Now I don't want to be misquoted or come off as cynical because I know for a fact a lot of diseases are due to genetic predisposition. I spent 2 years studying the effect of one gene on autoimmune diabetes. My point is that we have reached a point of scientific overindulgence. It's an ego thing if you ask me. One of the hottest topics in science right now is the creation of artificial life. J Craig Venter (who was crucial for the original sequencing of the human genome in 2000) is now trying to cut and paste several bacterial genes to make the most basic yet functional life form. In my opinion it's a classic God complex: trying to "create life" for a second time. Now most people who read the press release (link below) at first glance will be amazed at the limitless possibilities of science. Make them proud at humanity's accomplishments in the last few millennia. But after some scrutinizing, this project is "cheating" quite a bit. They will cut and paste pre-existing genes from an organism and then plant them in a cell which will have been stripped of its original genome.
To make an analogy it's similar to those old cartoons where they perform brain transplants and although the body is the same, the personality of the patient will be dependent on his new brain. The reason neither the genes (brain) nor the hollowed out cell (body) were synthesized from scratch is because we haven't got the faintest clue how!
This synthetic bacterial genome project is a good example of science's "all-knowing" attitude. Truthfully, science in all contexts ends up bringing up more questions that we hadn't even thought about asking in the first place. To quote Carl Sagan again: "Science is like a candle in the dark". Basically, a candle will clearly illuminate one spot of a giant (infinite) room but everything else is pitch black. If we notice a carpet, then we will wonder "how big is it?", "how many are there?", "are they all similar?", "what's the carpet made of?" But before we knew about the carpet we couldn't ask the proper questions. Furthermore, another issue arises: how relevant is that carpet? Is that little bit of information about the room enough for predicting what the rest of the room looks like?
When something is of interest in science the classic approach is to isolate the phenomenon and create a model in vitro (Latin for "within glass", however "within a plastic test tube" is more appropriate!). When the phenomenon is well characterized, the study continues in an animal model and it is at this point that things get tricky. Things are never as logical or "black and white" as within the test tube and this is when many more questions are brought up. It's an exciting albeit frustrating process! but a far cry from the "all knowing" aura science projects these days.
Think of the big answers science has produced in the last hundred years: the Big Bang, the theory of evolution, theory of relativity, black holes, dark matter, genetics, etc. Can we be 110% sure about all of these? I am not a physicist, but in 1000 years can we be sure that we won't be laughed at for concepts such as the Big Bang and dark holes... Will we be laughed at for relying on the subconscious or the genome to define one's personality? Evolution has some very large gaps in what we believe and actual evidence. The whole survival of the fittest would mean that there are some failed prototypes somewhere right? Where are the 2 legged mammals or 1 eyed fish?
Now my point is not that all of these theories are false, simply that they are substantiated theories and not absolute truths. Science's conclusions have garnered a supernatural finality to them that is undeserved. To believe science can answer any question and is the absolute truth takes some blind faith. The same type of blind faith that scientists sneer at when religion is brought up. There was a time when scientists claimed that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Should we laugh at those theories? Back then, they had not seen the metaphorical carpet (in reference to my analogy above). Back then they were limited by their tools. So are we.
Fanaticism is dangerous in religion and in science. Being a fanatic in either will numb you to the complexity and/or the beauty of the world we live in and are apart of. Neither science nor religion has all the answers even though they each claim to. Let me know what you think!
alcoholism gene - http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene
obesity gene - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1484659.stm
depression gene - http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2003/mccord/5-HTT.html
Posts
Great post Alex.
ReplyDeleteOne thing though, the survival of the fittest idea is far from perfect, however, its not from the point of view of species that didn't survive.
First, the sample of species we have is ridiculously small (due to the hardships of sedimentation and preservation).
Second, there are actually a lot of example of evolutionary dead ends. two of the most known being the Neanderthalians and Tasmanian wolves (also... aren't two legged mammals ubiquitous?)
Pepsi gene
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/scientists_isolate_pepsi?utm_source=onion_rss_daily