THE USE AND MIS-USE OF SCIENCE by Cyril Garbett

The history of civilization shows how to choose between making the right and wrong use of
the discoveries of science. In a very short period amazing discoveries have been made and
applied to practical purposes. There have been more scientific discoveries in our own age
than in any previous period of history. They have caused so many changes so quickly that it
has been like a revolution. So, people say that they are living in an age of revolution.

In fact, Science is a great boon to mankind. Science has brought many advantages to
mankind and improved life for people. It has helped to fight malnutrition, hunger and
disease. It has lengthened life and has also increased its quality. Fields of knowledge,
experience and recreation are now available to millions of people. Now we must accept the
fact that science has done and is doing a lot for the welfare of our race.

But the gifts of modern science can be misused. The motor driven vehicle makes business
easy and gives harmless enjoyment to many. But it can also kill many people. Similarly, the
cinema is a means of instructions and recreations but it is also a channel of vulgarity and
false values. The wireless (radio) can link the world together in the moment of time, but it
can also be the instrument of spreading propaganda. Likewise, the airplane makes travel
rapid and easy but it can also be used as weapon of destruction.

Now the question arises as to how far it is morally justifiable to make perfect discoveries
and inventions which can be used for purpose of destruction. In other words, Scientists
must think about whether it is morally right to create things that can do harm even though
they can also do good. This was the question raised by Professor Hill. 'If we think it is wrong
to achieve something good by first doing evil, then isn't it also wrong to achieve something
good by a method that we know could be used later to cause evil?'

He discusses two problems in relations to this question. The first was taken from the
development of nuclear physics. It has greatest value to mankind if used rightly. But at
present the main object of the development of this science is to produce weapons such as the
atomic and hydrogen bomb of the great destructive power. Is it right, therefore, to continue
research on it? The other problem arises from the success of science in overcoming disease
and lengthening life. Science has increased birth rate and life expectancy by controlling
hunger and disease. But the supplies of world food are not increasing at the same rate. In
this case, the world becomes divided into two groups: "Haves" and “Have-nots". The
struggles to get food will lead to a situation where the rich and privileged will be able to
obtain enough and the poor and powerless people will be unable to do so. People will fight
wars to get possession of food resources. In the attempt to produce more food, the land will
be overworked, erosion will take place and the soil will become like dust. So, is it right to
continue improving world health and reducing mortality if it is evidently clear that by doing
so future famine and disorder are sure? These types of question are really a great challenge
to thoughtful men.