Science as good or bad.

According to Albert Einstein, “The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.” (Calaprice 240) If the purpose of science is to provide us with “empirical facts,” or what I would say truths, how do we categorize sciences into either good or bad deductions? There must be some sort of criteria that is logically deduced for the sake of structure in a society. This demand can be seen a society such as ours which requires the use of technology manifested through scientific improvements. The evaluation of the methods used to derive scientific improvement to categorize these sciences as either good or bad is most important to our society. It must follow certain rules or ethics so that it not only is communicated efficiently so that everyone may understand it but also must have been through means considered ethical. Where exactly do you draw a line between good or bad science? The purpose of this essay is to draw a line between good and bad science. I plan to contrast the motives of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring to James D. Watsons The Double Helix as the basis for the definition of the line that splits the science into good or bad. To define science as good or bad, you must evaluate both the process used for the creation of this science and the motives behind the scientist. The motive is the most important distinguishing factor for this definition because the goal of a person’s action derives its purpose. The purpose is our understanding of why a problem is being solved and the basis that this problem was addressed. To determine if something is good or bad it requires that these qualities are objective, and to introduce emotion (as with a motive) is counterproductive to the goal of good objective science.
Sir Francis Bacon said, “The cause and root of nearly all evils in the sciences is this — that while we falsely admire and extol the powers of the human mind we neglect to seek for its true helps.” (Bacon 34) The differentiation to bad science lies within the scientist inner conflict or struggle to achieve this science. In James D. Watson's The Double Helix we are presented with a seemingly well written story about his discovery of DNA. This work, from the mind of Watson, starts with a problem and leads to a solution through various mechanical steps. The purpose behind this is blatantly obvious in this book. From the very beginning of the book you can tell that this was not a race for the science itself but a race to promote Watson’s own career. To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein, “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.” (Calaprice 241) With this at the basis of my categorization, to differentiate between good and bad science cannot be done due to final outcomes. If this were the case, then science would be completely bad because just about anything could be used for negative intentions. An example of this is the nuclear bomb. The process that was taken to get to this creation was no doubt a difficult task that was accomplished through careful observations with tools that extended the power of our human senses. In the case of the search for the structure of DNA, the motive to find it defines the bad science within it. This was no journey for the sake on science on the behalf Watson but a personal journey to make him known. According to Watson, it was luck that they were the first ones to figure out the structure. From his accounts in the book, it was through the work of other people that he was able to deduce his own findings. James D. Watson was quoted on a PBS documentary titled “DNA” as saying, “If we don't play god, who will?” This quote remarks on the type of character that he is. His motive for researching the structure of DNA is ultimately why The Double Helix should be considered bad science.
In Silent Spring Rachel Carson delivers a powerful line, “We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the salmon runs dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims. We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we sprayed the robins directly but because the poison traveled, step by step, through the now familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of the visible world around us.” (Carson 277) The point of a good science is to attempt to explain something that is considered complex phenomena in terms of composition, is honest, and is achieved through selfless means. Rachel Carson took a series of steps to get to this conclusion. Her motive is very clear. The way she approached delivering her discoveries was through bits and pieces and her research was good because it followed the guidelines as previously mentioned. Bad science is on the opposite side of the spectrum. To barrow a term from Richard Feynman, bad science is a “cargo cult science,” which he defines as pseudo of being scientific but is missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.” (Feynman 341) A scientist who is in it for the fame only has the means to only promote himself, cannot be objective, or honest. Rachel Carson is in this to make a change in the way the world currently worked. She was trying to stop something that was going to hurt us as a developed nation in the long run. She was not doing this simply for fame but to fix a real problem that affects everyone else. This is a prime example of good science.
The separation between good science and bad science makes categorizing Silent Spring and The Double Helix simple. Rachel Carson’s motive behind Silent Spring was to spread awareness of what we were doing to our environment. She wasn’t doing this to make a dime or for fame. She was not the first person to suggest that pesticides are ruining the environment and is silently killing off animals. She was exposing the power of DDT because its introduction into use was dishonest. Her research was through empirical means. Her motives were pure and selfless. This would categorize Silent Spring as good science. The Double Helix is bad science. Its inception was only for the purpose of one creating fame from jealousy and not because it is one's duty to improve upon science for the sake of science. James Watson had no integrity, was not honest, and was a fame seeker. It would be easy to confuse The Double Helix with the discovery of DNA. DNA is the epoch of good science; it was the greatest theorization whose possibilities to this day are still being tested. The branch that is The Double Helix off DNA is bad science. They have two different orientations, they have two different births, and they have two different meanings. DNA came from careful observations and experiments and is objective. The Double Helix goes off in its own direction, arrived from a different commonplace, and is the direct categorization of bad science.
The line that contrasts good from bad science is a black and white definition. The way it has been outlined is not really open to interpretation, but has been laid out in a concrete manner. The importance of categorizing science into good or bad is that the bad is what hurts the improvement of science. It institutes behavior that is not considered ethical so therefore should not be accepted as ethical. I find that it’s a lot easier to categorize things as a good science. To even embark on a journey to contrast the two has been a complete mind breaker. Bad science is most likely the child behavior created by competition in an environment that promotes this competition as a way of alienation. If people worked together (which they do) not for the sake of themselves for every single other person then this world would be a better place. Einstein is a prime example of this. He didn’t seek fame but sought after the truth. This is the intellectual hunger that is absent in the case of Dr. Watson. This lack of strive for the solution should be within every single scientist. People should not become a scientist for the money, that’s why we have businesses. Scientist should strive to create good science as that promotes the creation of an honest, objective, and concrete truth.





WORKS CITED

Calaprice, Alice . The New Quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Feynman, Richard, and Ralph Leighton. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1985.
Bacon, Francis. Francis Bacon: The New Organon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Watson, James D. The Double Helix. New York, NY: Touchstone, 1996.
"Part 5 of DNA." DNA. DNA. James D. Watson. PBS, United States. February 2004.
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mufflin Company, 2002.