BELMONTE, Bianca Lou F.

MRR1

GED104/A22 May 26,2019

1. Wolpert emphasized the thought that ‘reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no
moral or ethical value’ throughout the paper in attempt to lay down a clear definition of science and
scientific knowledge so both thoughts would not be antagonized and from his words, be subject to
perversion. Upon reading, Wolpert builds up the idea that science with its wonders and negative
impressions is different from technology. As he provides, science is the knowledge and understanding
of how the world works while technology gives chance to application. He disproves the common
negative impressions of society on science. As science is seen as human’s way to ‘play-God’ and fumble
with all things natural, Wolpert explains that science shouldn’t be seen in that light because science or
reliable scientific knowledge is not those views. Science is factual and it is as basic as the truth that Earth
isn’t the center of the universe or Atomic theory is discovered to exist. Scientific knowledge is simply
discovered facts about how the world works. Scientific knowledge being value-free and has no moral
value meant that prior to it being applied on technology and society, scientific knowledge is the neutral
fact of how the world works. It isn’t a discovery made to procure something devastating, it is a discovery
of the world’s nature that has no application yet. With it being a fact and not yet applied, it cannot be
pointed as right or wrong since it is only a fact that the scientist did not predict to discover. Knowledge
then becomes reliable when scientists do their obligation of transparency on its possible application for
the society.

2. C. Eugenics as defined is the science of improving human stock. From the article, I’ve come to see
the 2 sides of eugenics. The past idea of eugenics revolved in improving certain races by sterilizing
people with possible weak gene traits. This past era of eugenics is an example of perversion or scientific
knowledge because at first it would be understandable that people back then thought of the idea of
trying to let people with no genetic illness mate with each other to control a population safe from certain
genetic illnesses. However, as past era eugenics spread to Germany, they have thought that they can
control genes that makes a person a Jew or gypsy. With that, they have completely disregarded the
thought that certain traits about humans are not fully based on genes. The government used the
scientific knowledge of genes to produce a higher type of race and isolate people with ‘weak’ genes by
sterilization. As said from the article, the scientists could have explained that genes aren’t the only factor
that make certain identities but they have allowed the government to mistreat the information just
because the scientists failed to follow through their social responsibilities.
BELMONTE, Bianca Lou F. MRR1

GED104/A22 May 26,2019

Another example of perversion of scientific knowledge in Eugenics occurs in our era now.
As cloning and various methods regarding embryo and stem cells usage arise, media claw through
society’s anxiety of ‘playing-God’ scientists. Anything that might shake the society’s faith to
scientists are exploited because the society doesn’t know better about scientific facts that media
sometimes magnify to distort. Like myself, I wasn’t aware about the specifics of In Vitro
Fertilization until this article. I would have considered myself sheep that media can scare about
science going backwards but in reality, have been flourishing and helping a lot of people.
Eugenics in the past have been subject to perversion by being misused by the government while
in the present, Eugenics have been distorted into something to be feared.

3. As discussed in this paper, as much as the reliability of scientific knowledge is important,

informing the society about science is just as crucial. Scientists are obligated to be transparent
about scientific knowledge but it would be of no use if no citizen cares to understand. The society
is so easy to influence and transparent sharing of information is irrelevant if people are scared of
the implications of science and would keep on spreading their misinformed sentiments. It is
imperative to encourage people to also put up with their end of understanding science so that
scientists and society can go through discoveries together as they see applications of it in their
lives.