Science has big effect on development of our lives. Good examples of this advance are how we use electricity, drive car, and cure illness. However, scientist’s discoveries not always be profitable or have positive consequence to human being because it would emerge negative result later on. Some people may argue that this scientist is responsible for negative result. However, I have a different idea. When it comes to statement that the result comes from users who use the discoveries not scientists, I strongly agree with it. I totally think that scientist is not responsible for negative impact of their discoveries for 2 reasons;
First of all, negative impacts of their discoveries are responsible to the people who utilize the discoveries later rather than scientist. Scientist’s fundamental reason to exist is to explore their subject or to develop something which make human’s life better. It means that scientist intend their discoveries to use right direction not headed negative direction. However, their discoveries not always use what they intended because the people who harness the discoveries use them along with their purpose not scientists’ purpose. For example, Nobel, the most famous chemist, invented dynamite to develop mine. However, regardless of his intention, users utilized them in war to defeat other nation. Like this, the positive invention sometimes used negative purpose, even scientist didn’t want that. Therefore, scientists are not responsible for negative impact of their discoveries since it is up to how and who the achievement would be used.
Second, liability for negative result compresses various scope of science exploring. Science could be developed and improved wider and deeper in free atmosphere to study. Scientist should tend to passive with pressure of negative consequence. There is convincing example supporting this idea. A dominant newspaper reported related article. According to the article, there is a doctor who wants to try his own medicine discovery to a patient that is dying with a terminal disease. The doctor may have conviction that his study would cure the ailment, but if the public asked the responsibility of negative effects to the doctor, he cannot even try the new discovery because of the serious concern about responsibility of a negative reaction after he tried his new discovery to patient. So the disease would be existed permanently as an impossible illness to cure. This article proves that responsibility of negative impact make scientist does not create something more.
In conclusion, people who take advantage of scientist’s discoveries may bring about negative consequence not scientist. Also, responsibility of negative impact makes scientist exploring limited scope of sciences. Therefore, scientist is not responsible for negative of their discoveries. |