We all need to understand what unbridled science could lead to:

Science when led by personal or corporate profit motives is a real threat to society and a danger to our children, as the examples below illustrate.  

Specifically science could drag us into:

1) A world on the verge of disastrous and unpredictable climate changes. Carbon dioxide locked now in permafrost could mean the danger of global climate changes is much worse than generally believed.  The potential danger of changing the greenhouse effect could be much worse than the computer models predict. it is very unlikely that the models are valid if they don't include these large effects and others like them.

2) A world with faster growing but less nutritious or even dangerous food.

3) A world ecology inadvertently severely damaged, which could lead to tragic and widespread losses in nature, including needed food plants and other plants being lost which are potential sources of life saving medicines.

4) A world with new/altered germs which produce much more serious diseases and possibly uncontrollable plagues, or chronic health problems.  One wonders about  widespread problems in breathing are already being seen in relatively clean countries like Australia.

5) Medical treatments which can do more harm than good without the patient understanding the risks.  As many as 140,000 people may be the victims of bad medicine annually.  More than one source makes this incredible statement. We strongly recommend reading the book; "UltraPrevention" written by two M.D.s.   Questionable drug safety?  

Go to a good open minded M.D. and ask questions.  Get second opinions.  Be aware of the dangers as well as the potential benefits of medicines.  Get all your prescriptions at one pharmacy.  Try to find a pharmacy that has a computerized system which checks for adverse drug interactions.  Get your prescriptions in a hard pill rather than capsule form.  Ask your doctor about other medicines if you suspect you are having any negative reaction.  Have you kidney and liver functions tested periodically by your doctor.  Call your doctor at once if the medicine causes any problem.  

But science is curing disease; right?  The reality is not that good.

These concerns are based on very dangerous things already being done in the name of science:

In the Oct. 19, 2002 issue of the Seattle Times, there was article on the front page titled "Bacteria Revived after 250 Million Years"   Think about that.  Who decided it was safe to do something like that?  Do we really want to risk exposing societies to ancient bacteria?  Is the risk worth the possible reward?  The article in the paper never even mentions the risk?   The danger of bioprospecting.

There was also a program on TV recently about the ancient extinction of a number of very large mammal species.  One possible explanation was some kind of multiple species massive plague.  The scientists went to a cave on an island off the tip of South America, dug up animal feces from that time when the most dangerous plague of all time may have occurred and took the sample to New York to look for evidence of such a plague!  Who decided that was safe?  

Does any socially responsible scientific body or government agency check and approve science adventures for safety?  Do we really want to risk releasing ancient plagues on modern earth, especially with all the rapid global travel?

Science just for science sake in many cases may not be worth it, to put it mildly.  Certainly science can be extremely valuable to so society and in fact, science properly controlled will hold the answers to many of the problems created by bad science or other problems of society.  Again, however, science can easily get out of hand.  There needs to be an oversight by citizens who are not swayed by career or profit considerations. 

Genetically modified crop mishap.   Had it not been detected (if GM crops go into worldwide use, this could easily happen) there could have had people getting inadvertent medicine components in their food without their knowledge.  Biotech and the environment.

Elitism vs. Checks and Balances in Communicating Scientific Information to the Public  Read the "And Society" paragraph.

Should we trust all scientists?  Read the homepage of this site; "The Modern Meaning of Science".  Even humanists are concerned.

The key argument is that whatever the scientific experts know, they cannot always be trusted alone to advise on matters scientific because they do not necessarily share the instinctive concerns of the public and scientists may not be able to see the forest for the trees.  They may not give adequate thought to the things that inevitably go wrong.  There is a tendency for the scientist to become too focused on the immediate problem at the expense of the long term danger. Furthermore, it can be argued that the public, whose instinctive concerns demonstrate a more accurate appreciation of the limits of nature and knowledge, have in the past been excluded from the decision making process and therefore feel aggrieved about the risks that are imposed upon them without consultation. The answer, then, is to democratize the decision-making processes by including other voices and forms of expertise.  The specialist scientists should not be given the power of funding decisions in their areas where they have a monetary and professional interest without public input/control.  A Nobel Laureate Comes Out Against Block Research Grants

A book has been written about the supposed "Republican War on Science."  We say good, if it is true.  The reality is that there needs to be a war on unbridled science.  Where did anyone ever get the idea that scientists and the science establishment bureaucrats should be determining where the public money goes to fund science?  That is a decision which should be made by elected officials informed by an educated electorate.

For other examples of how bad science is causing problems, refer to the links below.

Read this about new cancer drugs if you have that disease.  There is good news!

Climate changes are probably more serious in potential than most people realize.

Climate changes may not happen slowly, they may be abrupt and irreversible.

U.S. food borne illness up 2 to 10 fold.

Science actually making new disease.

Secrecy in science a risk to the public.

The danger of science.

The danger of science without religion.

The threat of biological weapons is becoming far greater as business and atheistic scientists develop biological techniques to make money commercially that could fall into terrorists hands.

Decreasing fertility, is it correct to assume that it is genetic and not environmental?

Genetic engineering of food

A group concerned about genetically engineered food.

Antibiotics in your food.

Irradiating your food may change content to new harmful chemicals.

Irradiating you food and losing vitamin content.

A college site with many articles on the dangers of science

Site on the misuse of science.

For many years, physicists were in denial that unethical conduct was a problem in their profession. But an erosion or neglect of trust and professional responsibility can threaten the research enterprise, often in subtle ways.

Moral beliefs, which would tend to produce more responsible science, can be unwelcome in science.

These threats of bad science are greater since the science bureaucracy believes that morals are not part of science research or use.

              Amoral science also threatens moral values:

The threat to Christian faith.

Danger to our children.

Darwinism and Indoctrination by Our Public Schools.  It is a serious problem.

A plea on the behalf of children from Christian homes.

This is just a small sample of what is being done in the interests of business.  The threat from business profit driven science with little moral restraint is very real. 

More public input means better science