PROGRESS: HELPFUL OR A HINDRANCE?
© 2008 Judy Gail Krasnow
My goal today is to use the controversy that Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” caused regarding science, industry and the balance between the two to promote thought and discussion on the wise and ethical use of scientific discoveries going on today at an even more rapid rate in this technological world. My premise, as was Carson’s, is that an uneducated public and a silent one endangers life on this planet when it comes to what we call progress. I am sure that those of us here today will have differing viewpoints, just as there were when “Silent Spring” was published. Rachel Carson did not write her book with the thought that everyone would agree with her. She knew well ahead of even beginning to write it that it would arouse discontent and disagreement. But, in all good conscience, she could not remain silent.
Rachel Carson felt that if she could inspire people to think, spread word of consequences, encourage research on how to solve the problems posed by destructive insects without destroying the planet, she would accomplish that which she believed essential. As a tribute to her, to this planet, to our lives upon it, and to the generations to follow us, I will put forth ideas to be expressed here today that will give food for thought and, hopefully, educate. Perhaps these will inspire your voices to speak out about the problems confronting us today, and if we don’t take action now, will continue into the future. I ask what is — or is not — progress? In some instances, as with pesticides, the answers are not black or white. There are shades of gray. How do we deal with these shades of gray?
Many of us recall having to hide under our desks at school when a siren went off for air raid drills during the Cold War. The atomic and hydrogen bombs had been discovered – oh for the brilliance of the human mind! We all lived in fear of a nuclear holocaust: Bombs that could end all life on this planet. Was this progress?
Dr. Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine to prevent the dreaded disease of Polio. What relief this brought to those of us who grew up fearing we’d get the disease and knowing someone who’d died or was now crippled as a result. Was this progress?
President Dwight D. Eisenhower opened up American life to a new form of pioneering and an exciting way of life as he put into action the building of what have come to be known as super highways and the Interstate Highway system. America took to the roads with gas guzzling, environmentally polluting automobiles for recreation and business. Our dependency on oil grew to uncontrollable proportions involving us with countries that supply this oil but are not necessarily friends. Wars have been and continue to be fought over oil and prices at the gas pumps soar. The gasoline companies continue to push it upon us and keep their profits soaring rather than investing these huge profits in genuine research to come up with new technologies to keep us on the roads while caring for the environment. As a recent movie asked, “Who killed the electric car?” Progress?
Daily we are bombarded with advertisements for all sorts of drugs for all sorts of diseases we never even heard of or thought about before or symptoms not publicly discussed in the past – restless leg syndrome, unhappy children, too much cholesterol, too little calcium, sleeplessness, depression, hyperactive behavior, hot flashes, impotence and on and on. Voices that speak so fast we can barely follow what is being said then tell us these wonderful drugs can cause strokes, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, potential suicide in youth, blood clots, heart attacks, and even death. Progress?
Food is being genetically bio-engineered with, for example, pig genes being mixed into cucumbers and eggplants. Cauliflowers, once always white, are now also green. Fewer and fewer varieties of vegetables and fruits are being grown necessitating seeds to be frozen near the North Pole in Scandinavia to preserve the seeds should the world, too late, discover that playing around with Mother Nature in this fashion has left us without the foods we need and enough of them. Progress?
Genetic manipulation to prevent congenital diseases or deformities during pregnancy is becoming more and more possible as genetic codes are broken down and patterns discovered. Progress?
Recently, in a wonderful antique mall in the town where I now live, Jackson, Michigan, I found a book that immediately caught my eye: “Science Remaking The World,” by Dr. Otis W. Caldwell, Director of the Lincoln School of Teachers College and Professor of Education at Columbia University and Dr. Edwin E. Slossen, Editor, “Science Service,” Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., NY, 1922, 1923 © Doubleday, NY. In it, I found the following.
Some thirty years ago, Louis Pasteur said: “In our century science is the soul of the prosperity of nations and the living source of all progress. Undoubtedly, the tiring daily discussions of politics that seem to be our guide are empty appearances. What really leads us forward are a few scientific discoveries and their applications.”
From the same book, comes a quote from James R. Angell in 1922 when he was President of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences and Yale University: “…to fall behind other nations in scientific development is to precipitate a trend of events which spells national depression and disaster. In other words, the price of a sound, comprehensive national life is, in these times, widespread and intelligent scientific research.”
These are words that ring as true today as in the 1920s. Today, economic necessity and a high element of corporate greed in a global economy result in people from other lands being employed by American companies in these lands or brought here to attend college and then work in various scientific and technological fields. They take the jobs that Americans, who legitimately demand decent and often higher, wages, would otherwise get. However, America faces a major problem: too few of its own youth are interested in science, technology and industrial research to study these subjects so vital in today’s world. Hence, it is more than paying others lower wages that forces industry and technological companies to hire those from elsewhere. It is also a lack of enough interested, educated Americans to fill these jobs.
Scientific knowledge has, throughout time, most-often been at odds with religion. Ethics can vary from culture to culture. To quote Harlan B. Miller in a paper he wrote for a symposium in 1988, “Science, taken very generally, is concerned with what is … Ethics is concerned with what ought to be.” Copernicus was considered heretical for saying the earth revolved around the sun, for this contrasted with the Bible’s view that man’s world was geocentric – a flat earth with heaven above it and life existing only upon earth with Man as its focus in God’s eyes. Galileo was thrown into prison for observing Copernicus’ theory and proving it as fact through his observations with a scientific invention called the telescope. Columbus was threatened because he insisted the Earth was round. Reason has been in controversy with faith, as knowledge has been in controversy with belief in things unobserved or scrutinized through the scientific method. Philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his search for a universal definition of Ethics that could surpass cultural differences and behavior, stated, “The sort of life that most of us admire is one which is guided by large impersonal desires.” “Large, impersonal desires:” This implies that for the betterment of all, we must and should put our personal gains aside for the betterment of all.
An article in July 1964 in the “British Medical Journal” stated, “Progress without controversy is seldom possible. … Human institutions flourish only in so far as they evolve and adapt to changing circumstances.” Science has brought about much good. Vaccinations against smallpox, rabies, diphtheria, and other deadly and debilitating diseases, along with antibiotics, have saved millions of lives. Yes, these vaccinations and drugs have their inherent dangers, but for the most part, their results have helped humankind to live better, longer, healthier lives. Telephones, computers, electricity, the automobile, airflight – and the list goes on and on – have certainly changed our lives in many ways for the better. They have also brought their downsides, affecting the environment and causing tenuous political relationships between countries. Nuclear power holds two sides: cleaner, cheaper power to light our homes, towns and cities, and the potential to destroy the entire planet.
Today we hear the words “Global Warming” constantly. Controversy reigns at the very mention of them in spite of observations that the polar ice caps are melting, the polar bears are becoming an endangered species, cyclones, tornadoes, and hurricanes are increasing in numbers and virulence, and the levels of oceans are increasing while their temperatures are rising.
Albert Schweitzer, famed doctor and humanitarian said, “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.” Author and famed editor and writer for “New Yorker Magazine,” E.B. White is quoted in the opening of the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. “I am pessimistic about the human race because it is too ingenious for its own good. Our approach to nature is to beat it into submission. We would stand a better chance of survival if we accommodated ourselves to this planet and viewed it appreciatively instead of skeptically and dictatorially.
Here are further words that today ring equally true, written in the 1920s in the book I found in the antique mall: “To live in a scientific age, an age of rapidly accumulating knowledge imposes heavy obligations upon education and upon the resultant social and industrial controls. But the hardest question is yet to come. Has the common appreciation of moral obligations developed to a point where it is socially safe for all science knowledge to become common property? Can the common moral sense be trusted? … Since science deals with progressive truth, it should not omit its obligation toward better common knowledge of useful scientific truth. It dare not omit its due share of the obligation to have modern society develop in moral ideals and controls so that constructive and not destructive use of science shall result.”
Rachel Carson, with her knowledge about the oceans, became concerned with what chemical inventions used during WWII could potentially do to these waters and, hence, our planet, dependent upon the oceans for its life. She questioned what the chemical companies which made such great profits as a result of the War were going to turn to in order to continue obtaining such financial success with the War over. Spraying of chemicals in agriculture did not begin after the WWII, but the new chemicals such as DDT were even more potent than those previously used. Here again, from the book I have been quoting published in 1922, are some relevant views and facts. Entomologists – those who study insects – were doing so as far back as the Civil War with the goal of eradicating those insects that caused illness and damaged vast amounts of crops. Other countries followed the example of the United States in studying insects. With a growing population worldwide, increasing food production and the need to decrease diseases caused by insects to plants, animals and people, spraying and later the dusting of crops made possible by airflight was deemed essential. To quote:
“Indeed spraying is practical both with and without knowledge of its effects. In other cases, the cultural practices are changed in efforts to affect the life of injurious insects. Or, as in the case of California white scale and the Australian ladybird, the entomologist attempts to use the natural enemies of insects in his warfare. … The importation of the Australian ladybird into California in the late ‘eighties to kill off the white scale which threatened the extinction of the orange and lemon growing industries was a great accomplishment in itself and saved the country many millions of dollars. It is of especial significance, however, in that it pointed out the possibility of the utilization of the natural enemies of destructive insects … in a way that has been followed with other successes in this country and elsewhere.”
Yet, amidst the insect and other problems besetting the nation, responsibility to the public is emphasized. Exact knowledge and faithful interpretations of science in themselves provide large obligations. But the still larger one – without which modern science is dangerous – asks that intellectual and moral ideals and controls shall develop in harmony with growth in possession of scientific knowledge.
Rachel Carson, as early as in 1945, tried to interest the Reader’s Digest in an article about the alarming evidence of the damage the new synthetic chemical, DDT, along with other long-lasting new pesticides, could have on the environment. She fully understood the necessity for preserving crops and increasing their growth and for preventing insect-caused diseases such as malaria caused by mosquitoes, sleeping sickness caused in Africa by the Tsetse Fly, Rocky Mountain Fever caused by tics, and a host of others. However, she could not but help notice some ominous new trends. She said, “Intoxicated with a sense of his own power, mankind seems to be going farther and farther into more experiments for the destruction of himself and his world. Technology is moving on a faster trajectory than mankind’s sense of moral responsibility.”
The scientists in the 1920s had questioned the moral right of both scientists and the government to remain silent and keep the people in ignorance of possible harmful effects as the result of certain scientific discoveries. Rachel Carson questioned the moral right of the same to blatantly expose citizens to toxic chemicals seeping into every element of the environment and potentially destroying the very fabric of life on earth. In “Silent Spring” she wrote, “The average purchaser is completely bewildered by the array of available insecticides, fungicides, and weed killers, and has no way of knowing which are the deadly ones, which reasonably safe. … We should diligently explore the possibilities of non-chemical methods. … Until large-scale conversion to these methods has been made, we shall have little relief from a situation that, by any common-sense standards, is intolerable. As matters stand now, we are in little better position than the guests of the Borgias.”
A major problem in scientific research is that it is funded by industry. Industry hopes to make a profit from the new discoveries and inventions. The scientists working for industry are therefore doing their research with the paradigms that what the companies want as products are to be proven possible and effective. In the case of pesticides, the scientists were to focus on the effect they’d have on killing insects without also researching the effect they could have on the environment: plants, animals, waters, the air, and people. Things have not changed much today. As a result of “Silent Spring,” the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and we have bureaus and organizations such as OSHA – the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Yet, fighting the big corporations is still not an easy task. The corporations fight for less and less government controls. Remember the film “Erin Brockovich,” in which she takes on the almost impossible task of fighting to clean up the water pollution that is causing cancer in the community. “Silkwood,” was the movie about Karen Silkwood whose mysterious death occurs because the nuclear power plant executives knew that she knew of their violations.
The chemical companies of the 1960s feared “Silent Spring” because they feared it would increase governmental controls and their profits would drop and/or they would no longer be able to market certain of their herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals. The chemical companies argued vociferously that there is no housewife in America who would want to go back to selecting “wormy apples” from the stores as they did prior to the use of pesticides. Some put out pamphlets warning that the world would return to a Dark Ages of insects ruling it with graphic descriptions of maggots squirming their way out of produce pulled from a refrigerator and about to be cooked for dinner. A “New York Times” editorial on July 2, 1962 defended Carson, stating, “Carson does not argue that pesticides should never be used. She simply warns of the dangers of misuse and overuse by a public that has become mesmerized by the notion that chemists are the possessors of divine wisdom and that nothing but benefit can emerge from their test tubes.”
We must ask ourselves today if we have not become a passive and mesmerized public regarding science and many of its offerings that we simply accept such as the bioengineering of our food. No studies have been done as to long-range results of such genetically manipulated produce upon our bodies. We know that hormone treatment was practically pushed upon women over the past decades and when the rate of breast cancer increased in manifold numbers, it was then discovered that the amounts of estrogen in the treatment were the cause. What other medications, foods, environmental chemicals and pollutions are we being exposed to without them first being tested? Are all the imports from China that include lead in toys for children, overdose amounts of the blood thinner heparin that killed some fifteen people, and toxic pet foods progress because companies can make larger profits using cheap labor in China? Have we become a silent nation again? Have we lost our search for the ethics that, as Bertrand Russell said comes from behaving in a manner that puts the good of all above our own selfish needs?
The moon is essential to the tides of the oceans upon the earth. Even the Australian Aborigines observed this and a folktale from their culture reflects this. Parrot Man and Moon man continually argued over foolish things like who was the most beautiful and useful. The argument became so intense that they physically fought. In a tug of war, moon man pulled so hard as parrot man let go, that moon man shot into the sky and has never been able to return. However, the two are still fighting and continuing to tug at one another, and this causes the tides to forever rise and fall in the oceans. Yet, this tug of war keeps the ocean waters in motion, purifying them and keeping them safe and clean for all life that lives in them and all other life that is dependent upon them.
With talk of man, now is capable of going to the moon to mine its ores, what will become of the moon, which is so essential to life on earth? Those of us who were old enough can remember that amazing day on July 29, 1969 when Neil Armstrong set foot upon the moon. Progress? Yet, what will mining upon the moon do to this most necessary satellite of our Earth? Will robbing it of its ores and other minerals be akin to tearing up the Rain Forests of Brazil, which is causing climate change around the Earth? Will it affect that tug of war going on between parrot man and moon man, so to speak – upset the natural balance of nature? Is progress always progress simply because mankind is capable of doing something? Should results of progress be investigated prior to simply stepping in and using new scientific developments?
The Titanic was the largest ship built in its time. It was considered indestructible. Safety precautions were not taken to assure that should something happen a lifeboat and safety vest would be available for each and every passenger. Hence, thousands died when the indestructible was destructed. This is an example of how science so often ploughs ahead without the necessary precautions.
Science brings changes and calls upon us to shake up our ways of thinking and to challenge our own sense of beliefs and what is right or wrong. Controversy reigns as differences in beliefs enter the scene of what is considered scientific progress. Perhaps one of the most controversial scientific advances today is that of stem-cell research. Stem-cell technology can result in many people regaining lost sight, help in the relief and possible cure of dreaded Parkinson’s. More advanced techniques of collecting, or “harvesting,” human stem cells are now used in order to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders. The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. Yet, the thought of using human embryos for such a purpose raises all sorts of moral issues. People are most often thrilled that embryos can be grown in test tubes and implanted into infertile women. As a result of this, however, how many embryos not selected for implantation lie in waste? Should their yet unformed lives be used to give better lives to others?
Other ethical questions arise from the scientific advances in invitro fertilization and genetic manipulation. A day will soon come when parents can select the sex and race of their children. The consequences of such scientific advances again could drastically upset the balance of nature as boys are favored in so many societies and racial prejudices still exist around the world. Progress?
Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” out of deep commitment to this planet. Her wealth of knowledge and detailed research informed the public about what toxic chemicals were doing to the planet and the danger of totally destroying life as we know it should rampant, unchecked spraying of such chemicals continue. In the 1960s, the chemical companies took a stand against changing their tactics, for their profits were at stake.
Today it is the oil companies with whom we must do battle. Their influence controls the automobile industry and limits the researchers attempting to develop new sources of fuel or new ways to run our cars. The growth of corn for fuel has caused food prices to skyrocket. As a result, hunger around the world and tables with less food upon them in America are a growing reality. Brazil has found fuel produced by sugarcane a highly successful solution. Hybrid cars and electric ones have been invented and need honing, but they, too, are excellent alternatives. Why, then, is there such resistance and is it taking so long for changes to be made?
Rachel Carson’s book addressed a very real problem: controlling the damage and diseases caused by insects. “Silent Spring” called upon the nation to seek ways other than rampant spraying of toxic chemicals to solve these problems. The chemical companies resisted with all their power and might in order to protect their profits.
Today, we face a similar battle against the oil companies. No one is saying get rid of oil entirely, but its life underground is finite and its pollution to our planet in the form of global warming is growing evermore evident. Many, including the oil companies raking in profits so big as to boggle the mind, wish to deny this, just as the chemical companies wished to deny the dying birds and fish, increased childhood leukemia, and deaths and illnesses of those who dealt directly with the chemicals as they sprayed roadsides, farm fields, and their own home gardens.
Scientific progress can bring blessings. It can also become a Frankenstein without controls to check it. As Jacob Bronowski, mathematician, writer of the BBC series, “The Ascent of Man,” author and Assistant Director of the Salk Institute in the 1960s wrote, “Science doesn’t just suggest an ethical system, it has been an ethical system all along. It is based on the premise that we will take every precaution not to deceive ourselves, and the promise that we will not intentionally deceive others. That is the scientific ethic of truth-telling. What a refreshing possibility as a foundation for all ethics.”
In tribute to Rachel Carson, let us keep “Silent Spring” in our hearts and minds. What one book did to shake up the nation and the world cannot be forgotten. Let us be vigilant so that we know what science is presenting us with and how its progress will affect our Earth, our lives and the lives of future generations to come. Let us raise our voices when necessary to take every precaution to not allow ourselves to be deceived. Let us uphold, as Rachel Carson so courageously did, the scientific ethic of telling the truth.