Fear of science (conflated with scientific materialism or progress) can in part be attributed to a) historical knowledge and suspicion (the uses to which science has been put, and their consequences), and b) the rate of change foisted on society as it seeks to adapt to scientific and technological change. Like it or not, these are REAL fears and concerns.

Science does a disservice to Society when it dismisses societal concerns, anxieties and fears. Some of these are irrational and founded upon ignorance, and some are founded upon an emotional-ethical concern. Science has no implicit or explicit Ethics. Religion–insofar as it embodies an Ethics, remains central to human social existence. This is the source of most of human values (the social arena, not the science lab).

Also, Brooks’s point about the eugenics movement is valid and has been noted by other, more liberal science observers. As of the current state of genetics, we are fast approaching a new era in eugenic possibilities, and dangers; we are in danger of creating a “genetic class”, and bio-technology is now capable of producing genetic “chimeras” (which are contrary to the mission of the USPTO, btw). Some of these developments hold out real hope and promise, and some pose nightmarish possibilities (and science is never exploited for money or power, right?)

My point is that scientific progress is held back , often, by science itself. Scientists can be arrogant and insulting (socially ignorant). The manufactured “controversy” of evolutionary theories, of late, is an indication of a deep need for dialogue between “the two cultures”. There may be no resolution, but clearly, science is viewed as threat (to tradition) by many people–especially people who derive no emotional benefit from science.

Putting aside the religious point, there is a parallel movement in the Arts,that has been growing steadily for some 20 or so years. It is the convergence of art and science (and technology). While its practices and products vary, most are concerned with placing art (and its artistic inquiries) central to the dialogue between Science and Society. This is an Art that interrogates Science as much as it uses its tools or products in its expressions. AS one of these artists (and also a naturalist), I find this inquiry to be vital to the future of human society.

But even if you reject this need, or reject any central, continuous place in society for such non-scientific (whether religio-psychological or ethico-aesthetic) “truthiness”, such criticisms of science raise important, fundamental questions, like:

Who gets to decide the values and goals of a society? Who gets to define and control “progress”? Who gets to say “enough” or “not so fast”? Who determines what is “truth”?

These are the questions that Brooks was alluding to.

Good night and good luck.

Alonso — thanks.

No right-wing or conservative-affiliated journalist or columnist should be allowed to write out science. Now that we’ve dispatched Ben Stein, let’s target John Derbyshire next.