Knowledge ≠ Wisdom

Scientific progress has had a long history of ethical dilemmas. It seems that the two are inseparable: from animal cruelty to artificial intelligence, complex moral issues arise from the simplest of scientific inquiries.

At one time we had wisdom, but little knowledge. Now we have a great deal of knowledge, but do we have enough wisdom to deal with that knowledge? 

-Jonas Salk

In "A Measure of Restraint," Chet Raymo voices a similar opinion of genetic engineering. His goal isn't to condemn--Raymo realizes genetic engineering is of "potential benefit to society" (10)--but instead to caution readers of the "peril" (11) that comes with reckless experimentation. He uses two historical examples of cesium and radium to support his claim, and interweaves imagery with jargon as a way to appeal to emotions. Raymo's essay raises tricky questions about "the enterprise of science" (10) which he himself is unable to answer. It's plain to see that research is valuable to society, but is there a line we shouldn't cross? When do the risks outweigh the benefits? 

Raymo's allusion to Frankenstein (10) encapsulates his fears. Frankenstein's monster, the result of Dr. Frankenstein's attempt to create life, is feared by even his creator. Is the demonstration of mastery over nature worth the pain suffered by Frankenstein's grotesque 
creation? 

As technology continues to advance, ethics will inevitably play a larger role in science. At some point or another, the elephant in the room--what is the ultimate goal of science?--must be dealt with.