Controversy Over Science: Max Born & J. Michael Bishop
By
Heba Loufty
HSS 101-005
Dr. Oguine
November 21,2001
Loutfy 1
Controversy Over Science: Max Born & Michael Bishop
The controversy over science is the central argument
in both Max Born’s “Reflections” and J. Michael Bishop’s
“Enemies of Promise.” Science and technology have greatly
influenced and improved the way people live in a society.
However, while Born argues that science is the essence of
the “breakdown of human civilization” (208), Bishop
strongly disagrees with Born’s views: that scientists must
take responsibility for their inventions and discoveries.
Born’s essay partly portrays a negative view towards
scientists and science. It shows examples of inventions
along with their negative effects towards nature and the
world. For example, “medicine has overcome most plagues and
epidemic diseases and it has doubled the human lifespan
within a single generation: the result . . . catastrophic
overpopulation” (Born 209). On the other hand, Bishop
believes that science has a more positive impact on the
world. To him, “We live in an age of scientific triumph.
Science has solved many of nature’s puzzles and greatly
enlarged human knowledge” (237). Bishop’s view is right.
But a point of similarity between the two works is
that to be a true scientist one needs a complete education,
which includes humanistic subjects like literature, art,
Loutfy 2
philosophy, history, religion, and music. For instance in
Born’s words, “Scientists should not be cut off from
humanistic thinking” (212), for it has “insights to offer
into the human condition” (Bishop 238). Here both agree.
Another strong argument is that society’s judgment of
science is clouded by ignorance. “It blames science for
what are actually the failures of individuals or society to
use the knowledge that science has provided. The blame is
misplaced” (Bishop 239). For example, the government spends
millions of dollars on the tobacco industry even though it
is a proven scientific fact that tobacco kills. This shows
that some people only want to misuse scientific products,
so they should be prepared to take responsibility for their
action and not blame it on science as Born implies.
Although Born’s “Reflections” and Bishop’s “Enemies of
Promise” share some similar points the main focus of each
work is quite different. In “Reflections”, Born “confesses
a sense of responsibility for the break down in human
civilization” (208). According to him, “Though I have not
taken part in applying scientific knowledge to destructive
purposes, . . . I feel my own responsibility” (212).
On the other hand, Bishop feels that any one scientist
should not take the blame for negative side effects of
Loutfy 3
another scientist’s experiments. “And to the extent that
scientists have at times indulged in the belief [of
scientism], they must shoulder some of the blame for the
misapprehensions that some people have about science”
(Bishop 238). This is a great difference in their views.
It is clear that Bishop’s argument, that scientists
should not take the blame for some of the negative effects
of science and technology, is more convincing, because
users might be misusing the products available to them. For
example, medicine has cured many diseases and helped people
everyday. But what happens when a person overdoses on the
medicine? Should the scientist who created the drug be
blamed? Of course not! Why? Because the blame is misplaced.
As seen in the film on Du Pont family, Empires of
Industry, there are positive and negative aspects of
science. The creation of explosives has allowed for
roadways to be built through mountains, revolutionized the
way people mine for natural resources, and many other
positive results. However, explosives like gun power,
bombs, and dynamite are responsible for countless deaths.
As with any other scientific invention, explosives can have
both positive and negative effects, depending on the users.
Loutfy 4
Finally, science and technology have greatly improved
our daily lives. However, some critics still argue that
science and technology are destroying the world. In fact,
society is generally not trusting toward science and new
scientific research, because of misplaced fears of the
hazards. As Bishop explains, “Resistance to science is born
of fear. Fear, in turn, is bred by ignorance. And it is
ignorance that is our deepest malady” (241). Even in the
absence of fear, it is not guaranteed that a scientist will
always have success, so society must always be prepared to
weigh the pros and cons of science and put the blame of any
mishap where it rightly belongs. In the end, there is no
doubt that with all the medical, chemical, constructive,
and biological advances in the world today, as Bishop puts
it, “to reject science is to deny the future” (242).
Works Cited
Bishop, J. Michael. “Enemies of Promise.” The Presence of
Others: Voices and Images That Call for Response. 3rd
edition. Ed. Andrea Lunsford and John Ruskiewicz. New
York: Bedford, 2000. 237-242.
Born, Max. “Reflections.” The Example of Science: An
Anthology for College Composition. Ed. Robert E. Lynch
and Thomas B. Swanzey. Massachusetts: Simon and
Schuster,1997. 208-212.
Empires of Industry.
Narr. Roger Mudd. History Channel
Special Presentation, 2001. Class Film. HSS 101-005.
Fall Semester, 16, 2001.
The Controversy Over Science: Max Born and J. Michael Bishop
By
Heba Loutfy
HSS 101-005
Dr. Oguine
11-20-01