Surname: Jacinto First name: Kyla

GED104 Section: AM20

Lewis Wolpert’s ‘The Medawar Lecture 1998: Is Science Dangerous?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569503/pdf/
MRR 1
rstb20051659.pdf
(Module 1)
Total Word Count: 500 words
1. What the three things that you significantly learned from the reading?
1.) New scientific ideas and discoveries can benefit and harm society. Good scientists ethically consider

their works to prevent disadvantages among the public, such as toxic waste, dangerous experiments,

harming of animals, etc. Science can only be harmful if its ideas and techniques are abused for evil

purposes.

2.) Some hindrances exist when seeking scientific knowledge and discoveries due to being opposed by

religious or conservative groups’ beliefs, leading to stereotypes, lack of method, and slow innovation

progress; they view knowledge as a sin.

3.) Lastly, the media negatively generalizes science and technology sometimes, causing people to

have a pessimistic view of it.

2. What are the three things that are still unclear to you?
1.) Why does the media antagonize science without looking at its advantages? It influences the

perspectives of society, and it might neglect its benefits.

2.) Why is religion somewhat opposed to knowledge if it helps us explore ideas and solve world

problems? Does it affect our spiritual values? The article mentions that Raphael advised Adam to
 lessen his questions about the universe's nature.

3.) Why can science not create a solution to the negative consequences of their discoverable works?

The article states scientific discoveries such as cloning can have a high risk of abnormalities. What

solution can be done to solve such problems?

3. What are the three things that you used to think about the topic?
1.) After reading the article, I used to think that science is the only reason for the modern adverse

outcomes on society. I realized that people are obligated to take ethical responsibility for the results of

their studies, like technologists, as the article noted.

2.) I used to think that producing new ideas and discoveries could always benefit society. I learned that

there is also a disadvantage to the new studies' results, such as gene therapy.

3.) I thought that scientists could continually put their ideas into practice. I discovered that scientists need

financial support or more power to continue testing new ideas.

4. What are the three questions that you want to ask about the reading article?
1.) If science improves our living conditions, why is society sometimes socially sensitive to its areas or

production that could benefit us? How will studies address its information relating to science

considering the perspectives of society?

2.) How will science be able to improve or extend its studies without negatively impacting society?
 What kind of support does science need to continue its practice and research?

3.) Can society's different or opposed beliefs prove scientific disadvantages? Some are against the

ideas of science, and what are their concerns about this? Does it prevent us from the cons of

scientific implications or oppress our knowledge?

5. Conclusion
1.) There should be a balance in power regarding science. According to the article, science should

always be neutral and value-free. Its method and approach should always be used for good purposes.

2.) If society knows only one side of science, then it would be viewed as negative or overlook its value.

The article mentioned that it is important for the public to learn about science through programs.

3.) I learned that it is not always the scientist to blame for modern or innovative problems because

some areas of studies are not always their field, and each professional takes responsibility for their

work.