Tuesday, June 15, 2010

-Ian Malcom's dialog to the Dr.Hammond who built the Jurassic Park, from the book by Michael Crichton


Dr. Hammond said, "My colleagues and I determined, several years ago, that it was possible to clone the
DNA of an extinct animal, and to grow it. That seemed to us a wonderful idea, it was a kind of time travel-the only time travel in the world. Bring them back alive, so to speak. And since it was so exciting, and since it
was possible to do it, we decided to go forward. We got this island, and we proceeded. It was all very simple."

"Simple?" Malcolm said. Somehow he found the energy to sit up in the bed. "Simple? You're a bigger fool than I thought you were. And I thought you were a very substantial fool."

Ellie said, "Dr. Malcolm," and tried to ease him back down. But Malcolm would have none of it. He pointed toward the radio, the shouts and the cries. "What is that, going on out there?" he said. "That's your simple idea. Simple. You create new life forms, about which you know nothing at all. Your Dr. Wu does not even know the names of the things he is creating. He cannot be bothered with such details as what the thing is called, let alone what it is. You create many of them in a very short time, you never learn anything about them, yet you expect them to do your bidding, because you made them and you therefore think you own them; you
forget that they are alive, they have an intelligence of their own, and they may not do your bidding, and you forget how little you know about them, how incompetent you are to do the things that you so frivolously
call simple.... Dear God . . ."

He sank back, coughing. "You know what's wrong with scientific power?" Malcolm said. "It's a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails."

Hammond said, "What is he talking about?"

Harding made a sign, indicating delirium. Malcolm cocked his eye. "I will tell you what I am talking about," he said. "Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it is your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you. It is literally the result of your discipline. Now, what is interesting about this process is that, by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands, he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely. So that kind of power has a built-in control. The discipline of getting the power changes you so that you won't abuse it."

"But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. There is no discipline lasting many decades. There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature. There is only a get-richquick, make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy. Cheat, lie, falsify-it doesn't matter. Not to you, or to your colleagues. No one will criticize you. No one has any standards. They are all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast."

"And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly. You don't even know exactly what you have done, but already you have reported it, patented it, and sold it. And the
buyer will have even less discipline than you. The buyer simply purchases the power, like any commodity. The buyer doesn't even conceive that any discipline might be necessary."

Hammond said, "Do you know what he is talking about?"
Ellie nodded.
"I haven't a clue," Hammond said.

"I'll make it simple," Malcolm said. "A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands. He does not lose his temper and kill his wife. The person who kills is the person who has no discipline, no restraint, and
who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special. And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits. And that is why you think that to build a place like this is simple."

"It was simple," Hammond insisted.
"Then why did it go wrong?"

1 comment:

  1. I actually believe that Malcolm's argument is true. Scientific power is not exactly like any other power. It's almost comparable to political power. The difference would be that in Science there are people who genuinely do it for the sake of curiosity and to amass knowledge. In politics, people who actually do it for the common good is very very rare.

    In our freny to publish papers and finish PhD faster than peers, dont we all jeapordize the discipline with which we should "Stand on the shoulder of Giants". A lot of us does experiments and anticipate results in a purely profit seeking manner. We look-up experiments designed by scientists before our age, who had only minimal technology and in way that can only be explained as incomparable astuteness, and replicate them in our conditions without even beginning to understand the thought process that must have gone through the minds of those "giants".

    From ALL this no one should come to the conclusion that I am a Dinosaur in scientific community. I've always argued with my friends who criticize the latest innovations simply because they think it's there right to do so. The latest being Craig Venter's incredible feat. On the contrary, my only appeal is this. Achieve things beyond the imaginations of our ancestors, no problem, but take a moment and think before u embark upon an endeavour that can have unforseen consequences in the near or far future. I'm not saying that every man should be able to anticipate every turn his or her inventions/discoveries might take. But do not just ignore the obvious wrong turns your brain-child can make just because it's too "awesome" to be kept under control or too profitable to keep it a secret.

    Right now i can't think of any specific examples other than citing the cliched cases of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That's something that can shoot off a whole new array of arguments. Please, we'll try to stick to the point now.

    Looking forward to some discussions. That includes u Vishnu.

    ReplyDelete