By Heresies Distressed (Pt I)

"Censorship is the height of vanity."

Yet yours truly has actually spent a great deal of time considering the idea that there are some things which perhaps should remain, let's say, 'out of sight' of the general public. I've been having this debate with myself for years with respect to certain ideas/areas in science. Not because I want to see science censored, but because the dissemination of scientific work doesn't always result in (immediate) progress in bettering the human condition. And if it has the potential to make social conditions worse, does the scientist bear a responsibility to censor his/her work?

The immediate impetus for this post was the realization that NOVA was airing a two-hour program tonight called Darwin's Darkest Hour, with the teaser "Charles Darwin must decide whether to make the theory of evolution public." And that reignited my internal debate about the responsibilities of science and the scientist.

Given the respect accorded to science in our society, the generally high inability to think critically about science possessed by a majority of people, and the tendency to apply scientific results inappropriately when creating public programs/policy, one can reasonably ask - Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used? (If you are a scientist, chances are that you found that last question offensive. Read on.)

A science journalist recently stated: "First, I think at least one topic is beyond the pale. Claims that certain races are innately less intelligent than others are so noxious—with so much potential to exacerbate racism–that I disapprove of their dissemination; in fact I’d like to see research on race and intelligence discontinued, because it has less than zero social value."

At first blush, I find the idea that any scientific knowledge should be censored to be offensive. I don't want anything to be kept or hidden from me because you think I can't handle it. I find it offensive when someone tells me that I shouldn't read The Bell Curve or The God Delusion. (Full disclosure: These are the only books that I have been actively hassled for reading. Hassled by well-educated friends, whose spontaneous reaction upon seeing me reading these books was 'I can't believe you're reading that', followed by an extensive rant on why that was unacceptable, and (in one case) a recommendation that I read something more 'normal', like Nora Roberts.)

But you don't truly understand a point of view until you can sympathize with it. An infamous hacker chick once vented about how the next 'Darwin' might be put off from going public with any similar ideological/scientific leap, because the social consequences might be a net negative. (If you are wondering how this has any relevance now, consider this essay about one area of science that is waiting to 'find its Darwin'.)

In a weird twist of irony, much of the fiction I've been reading lately also deals with the battle between knowledge and ignorance, and various rationales for failing to disseminate knowledge. I have resolved nothing new in my ongoing debate, save that I'll be watching NOVA tonight with this quote in mind...

"We wander through our lives and then we die. But for all of us there is one moment, one crucial point, where we have to make a decision between what's right and what's wrong, between different visions of who we might be."