Sir, I was very surprised to read the contents of your report (May 20th) on the lecture entitled "Is Science Dangerous?" by Professor Wolpert. Joe Humphreys reports that the professor stated, " scientists should not have to make ethical decisions about their research" and that "he warned against excluding certain areas from research". I am reluctant to engage in extensive argumentation on the mindset behind these and related issues without the benefit of the full text of the lecture, but given the tenor of your article, I would like to inform your readers that many scientists would not support Professor Wolpert's position.
The notion that science is neutral, that there is a clear distinction between science and technology, that values do not play a part in shaping science, and that problems only arise when science is misused by politicians, has come under increasing scrutiny over the past 50 years, as witnessed by research in areas including the history, philosophy and sociology of science and technology. The picture of science that emerges from these studies is one which emphasizes science as a practical human activity whose research programmes are also shaped by human, social, economic and political interests and values. The notion promulgated in this article is that science is somehow above these practical realities. The consequences of such a position can be problematic for society, as evidenced in the debates concerning the "scientific" study of intelligence and race, for example. I would hope that the RDS will also include in its list of "Science Today" speakers someone who reflects this alternative point of view. - Yours, etc., Dr Liam J. Bannon,
Dept of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Limerick.