[asa] on the common good, and science

Nice work, Rich, to locate the author of this statement:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

I am not going to get into a debate about tax cuts (apparently the context
for this statement by Senator Clinton); this isn't the place for that. But
I caution Janice or anyone else, from using something like this as a "litmus
test" for the credibility of a scientist or anyone else.

Let's use history of science--well, medicine actually--to illustrate the
point.

In the 19th century, opium use was legal in most places in the USA, unless
you were Chinese. I kid you not, Chinese immigrants and their communities
were singled out by laws in certain places (such as California) making opium
useage illegal for them, and only for them. I won't get into all the
subtleties of this particular form of racist legislation. Opium however
wasn't seen as medically dangerous at the time. Even heroin was a common
ingredient of "Patent medicines," and as some may recall cocaine was part of
the mix for the original Coca-cola recipe.

When medical knowledge changed, however, when it became clear just how
addictive and dangerous this stuff was, things were taken away from people
for the common good. That's pretty much exactly what happened.

The policy issue is quite different from the science issue--in that case
and in global warming today. But it can be responsible public policy to
take things away from people for the common good. Just as it can be
reasonably debated, whether or not a certain thing (money, submachine guns,
opium, cigars, transfatty acids, hand grenades, Hummers, child pornography,
Richard Dawkins' books) belongs in that category.

This is not a case of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 26 17:16:47 2007