Weaver • The Imperfections of Science 



plained and brought under control by 

 the methods of science. In our modern 

 physical laboratories we transmute the 

 elements, and change mass to energy 

 and vice versa. We experiment with 

 fantastic entities ludicrously called ele- 

 mentary particles— the most evanes- 

 cent of which exist for less than one 

 one-hundred-thousandth of a billionth 

 of a second. We create an electrical dis- 

 turbance in the recently discovered 

 radiation belt thousands of miles above 

 the surface of our earth; and, sure 

 enough, auroral lights appear at an- 

 other and far distant location on our 

 planet, just at the time theoretically 

 predicted. 



Yes, the triumphs of the physical 

 scientists are impressive enough to ex- 

 plain why science has a great reputa- 

 tion. But the triumphs of those parts 

 of science which are concerned with 

 living nature are, in many ways, to be 

 interpreted even more seriously. For 

 it seems, on the whole, reasonable and 

 proper for man to analyze his physical 

 environment. But the mysteries of life 

 —perhaps they are intended ':o remain 

 mysteries. 



The age-long history of rnaiVs learji- 

 ing about plants and about the lower 

 animals contributed to the good repu- 

 tation of science without creating any 

 large counter-feeling of apT^rehen.sion. 

 But when the first brave ansiomists in- 

 vaded the human body, and the early 

 physiologists began to analyze man's 

 own parts in mechanical terms, then 

 the philosophers and humanists and 

 theologians were convinced that they 

 could hear the distant footsteps of an 

 all-conquering science monster. 



When experiments show that the 

 normal mothering behavior of an ani- 

 may— the concern to feed and clean 

 and protect the very young offspring — 

 is destroyed by leaving a metallic trace 

 element out of the diet; when the 

 modern biochemist can explore inside 

 the mitochondria within a cell and ana- 



505 



lyze the enzyme systems there; when 

 the microbiologist can take a virus 

 apart into chemically identifiable and 

 wholly "dead" pieces and then can 

 reconstitute these pieces into an or- 

 ganism which can reproduce itself— 

 then indeed science begins to earn a 

 reputation which is in many senses 

 great, but which is also in some senses 

 frightening. 



So science has, it seems, been so suc- 

 cessful that it has inevitably earned a 

 great and strange reputation. If it has 

 never yet been defeated, presumably 

 it is all-powerful. Since science is, after 

 all, the work of scientists— for one sel- 

 dom encounters disembodied science 

 — then presumably these scientists are 

 both so clever and so wise that they 

 can do anything. Perhaps we should 

 turn the world over to this superbreed. 

 Perhaps they could, if properly sup- 

 ported, really liberated, and put in 

 charge — perhaps they could solve all 

 problems of human relations, of eco- 

 nomic stability, of international peace, 

 and of the good life. Perhaps they 

 should design not only the churches, 

 but the creeds also. Perhaps the best 

 music and the loveliest poetry will, in a 

 short time, come out of a machine. 



The sad fact is that some scientists 

 themselves appear to believe precisely 

 this. And this arrogant attitude quite 

 naturally irritates, or even angers, the 

 social scientists, the humanists, the 

 moralists, and the creative artists. 



To advance to our second question, 

 does science deserve either the favor- 

 able or the unfavorable parts of its 

 reputation? Can science not be given 

 a more true, more realistic, and more 

 constructive interpretation? I think 

 that the favorable part of the present 

 reputation of science is often signifi- 

 cantly misunderstood; and I think that 

 the unfavorable part is largely if not 

 wholly false. 



To deal with these questions we 

 must start with pretty basic considera- 



