INTRODUCTION

It is almost impossible to imagine life without telephones, comput-ers or motor vehicles of any kind. Much of the respect and awe withwhich we regard science is due to our perception that science is thedriving force behind these and other technological improvements inour lives. Indeed, it is not too hard to point to examples of scientificbreakthroughs that, through technology, have had positive impactson our lives.

Advances in biochemistry have allowed the invention and produc-tion of better drugs improving both life expectancy and the qualityof life, at least for those able to afford them. As a result of a betterunderstanding of physics, buildings and bridges can be engineeredmore reliably than they could even 50 years ago. An improvedunderstanding of aerodynamics and the behaviour of different mate-rials under different conditions have made it possible to build larger,faster, and more reliable aeroplanes which in turn has changed traveland tourism dramatically. Perhaps the most outstanding technologi-cal advance of the twentieth century is in computer and telecom-munications technologies and their integration, which has broughtus the Internet. Some commentators have even spoken of the“Death of Distance”1 as a result of these improvements.

Unit Unit 33Science and Technology

FD12A 85

For many, the advances in technology that have influenced our livesso deeply are the hallmark of science. The average citizen does notmake any great distinction between science and technology, and theactivities of scientists and engineers. However, scientists themselvesdo not share this view. They differentiate between the two, althoughthey admit that the two are closely interrelated. We must thereforeask what the difference between science and technology is, and whatthe relationship is between the two. There are many aspects of thediscussion we hope you enjoy exploring them here and afterwards.

OVERVIEW

In this unit of the course, we examine the difference between scienceand technology and the complex set of relationships that existbetween the two. We shall see that the nature of the relationshipbetween science and technology has changed over the last 50 years.

Not all technological innovations have been useful. Some of the tech-nologies, or some uses of them, have been harmful. This raises thequestion of whether the people involved in the development of thesetechnologies – pure or applied scientists, engineers or technologists –have any responsibility for ensuring the positive use of their work,and if so, what this responsibility is. We turn to these questions inthe second part of this section. Module 2 of the course will examinemore examples of how both science and technology have changedthe way in which societies are organized.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this unit, you should be able to:

1. Distinguish between science and technology

2. Discuss the complex relationships between science andtechnology

3. Describe, using examples, the extent to which these relationshipshave changed over the last 50 years or so

4. Discuss the extent to which scientists and technologists are, or

86 FD12A

should be, responsible for how the technologies derived fromtheir work are used

READINGS

• The Turbine. FD12A, Module 2 History, Section 3 pp 33 – 34 (endof paragraph 2).

• Microscope and Telescope. FD 12A, Module 2 History, Section 3pp 36 – 37

• The Nature of the Relationship between Science and Technology(p 88)

• Aching, Richard. Perspectives on Patenting the Steelpan. News.Government Information Services Government of the Republicof Trinidad and Tobago, June 5, 2002.

NOTE

1. Cairncross, Frances. The Death of Distance. Boston, USA: HarvardBusiness School Press, 1997.

FD12A 87

88 FD12A

Figure 3.1 Science and technology – their nature and relationship

The Relationship between Scienceand Technology

What is technology?

Technology can be defined as the set of tools and techniques forcontrolling and changing one’s environment. These technologiescome in all shapes and forms. They may be weapons with which tohunt more efficiently or to kill one’s rivals more effectively, shelterto protect oneself better from the elements, or agriculture, to ensurea more consistent food supply. A simple sewing needle is as muchan example of technology as a digitally controlled sewing machine.

How is science different from technology?

Previously, we saw that the aim of science is the discovery, descrip-tion, and understanding of facts about nature, whether on a large orsmall scale, about things living or otherwise. Science can be regardedas one attempt to satisfy the innate human need to understandthings. Science is about building theories that allow us to explain thebehaviours of the things around us and to make predictions about theirbehaviours under different circumstances. Science thus, at least poten-tially, fulfils two deep-seated human desires. The first is the desireto understand our environment, the second, our need to manipulateit to suit our needs and desires. We can attempt to control our envi-ronment because science allows us to predict what will happenwhen we make certain changes to one or more of its components.Technology is about applying that understanding to the construction ofobjects and procedures in the service of man.

Technology is as old as civilization

Our dependence on science nowadays suggests that scientific break-throughs have to come before any technological innovations.However, there are many examples of civilizations knowing that

89

Session 3.1

certain things work and knowing how to do things, without know-ing why they work. Technologies have existed from the dawn of thehuman race; it was not until fairly recently that scientific explana-tions for why these technologies work became available. Indeed insome cases they are still outstanding.

For example, many ancient cultures have left impressive buildingsand edifices, whose construction would have been impossible with-out a high degree of technological sophistication. The ancientEgyptians built their pyramids more than 3,000 years ago. Morethan 1,000 years ago, the Native Americans of Central America,such as the Aztecs and the Mayas, were highly sophisticatedmasons and constructed impressive buildings. Other impressivefeats of construction include the Great Ruins of Masvingo inZimbabwe, which were constructed more than 1,000 years ago, andthe mediaeval cathedrals in Western Europe, many of which wereconstructed around the same time.

Moreover, the advanced technologies were not restricted toconstruction. One can argue that one of the most useful inventionsof the human race was the wheel. Try to imagine life withoutwheels! The wheel made it possible to transport heavy loads overlarge distances, thereby making the construction of large edificesless cumbersome. Interestingly, the Aztecs and Mayas did not usethis piece of technology, which makes their elaborate constructionseven more amazing. Pulleys were another technological inventionemployed in constructing ancient buildings.

Figure 3.2

The first wheels werefound in Mesopota-mia dating back 5000years ago. Althoughthe Mayas usedwheels on toys theydid not seem to haverecognized itssignificance.

90 FD12A

Another important set of technologies involved the ability to extractiron from iron ore and techniques for shaping iron into more powerful tools and stronger weapons. The Chinese civilisation hadvery advanced iron technology before the fifth century BC. Initially,in the Western world the technologies used for extracting iron wererelatively primitive but they became highly sophisticated with theevolution of furnaces and so on. Also, towards the latter part of theeighteenth century they learned that by mixing iron with certainother elements, such as carbon, they could make an even strongermaterial called “steel”. The invention of steel allowed humans toconstruct stronger and more reliable structures, such as bridges and, a little later, sky scrapers, whose skeletons are constructed from steel.

Ancient Egyptian mummies provide another good example of asophisticated technology. The bodies that were mummified haveshown little sign of any decomposition more than 3,000 years later.Recent research has established that those responsible for preparingmummies used a complex combination of plant and other oils alongwith other elaborate techniques to preserve the bodies of pharaohsand other Egyptian nobles. There is no evidence that they knew why these procedures worked but they must have discovered thatthey did.

A final example of technologies that are worth mentioning is musicalinstruments. Almost all human cultures have developed musicalinstruments. Often they were used in religious ceremonies, althoughthey were also used for entertainment as well. Did these ancient civi-lizations know anything about the nature of sound waves?Apparently not!

ACTIVITY

Quickly review the above section and then answer the questionsbelow.

1. Give THREE examples from the passage above of technological developments that did not depend on knowledge of science.

2. Give one additional example you know.

FD12A 91 91

3. For each of the examples you have provided, state which branch of science could now offer explanations of how theywork. (Consider Biology, Chemistry and Physics. You maysuggest one or more than one for each example.)

Science can explain why some ancient technologies worked butnot all

It is clear that a wide range of technologies have been around for avery long time. None of the feats of engineering mentioned aboverelied on any scientific theories of the type discussed in the previoussection. There is no evidence of attempts to understand why thesevarious technologies worked. People seemed to be satisfied with themere fact that the technologies worked and had no desire to deter-mine why they worked. Perhaps their religious faith did not leadthem to question the nature of things.

We know now that the oils used in the mummification process hada number of anti-microbial properties that prevented the decomposi-tion of the bodies covered in them. The priests and their helperswho were responsible for mummifying bodies obviously knew thatthese oils would preserve the bodies but not why they did. Indeed,the discovery of microbes and their role in decomposition did nottake place until more than 2,500 years later. Similarly, the world hadto wait for the genius of Sir Isaac Newton, who lived from 1642 to1727, to explain why the wheel allowed one to transport heavyloads more easily, even though it had been in use for at least 10,000years.

Even today there are many technologies that we know work but westill do not know why they work. We know that certain animals,such as cows, pigs, chickens, camels, and yaks, can be domesticatedrelatively easily and humans have been using this knowledge for thelast 10,000 years. What makes it possible to domesticate a horsewhile a zebra (which does not look very different) is impossible todomesticate? Perhaps we will never know the answer.

92 FD12A

Does this suggestthat science is notnecessary for humanprogress?

To what extent does modern technology depend on scientificfindings?

Although many technological innovations used to take place with-out any intervention of science, this is no longer the case. Mosttechnological innovations these days, whether in information tech-nology, medicine or agriculture, are a direct result of technologistsapplying scientific theories. Technological advances now tend tofollow scientific breakthroughs, although not in all cases. It wasonly after some important progress was made in physics in generaland aerodynamics in particular some 80 to 90 years ago, that itbecame possible to design better and more reliable aeroplanes.Another breakthrough in physics some 60 years ago allowed thedevelopment of the nuclear bomb and nuclear power stations. Theseadvances would have been impossible without progress in physics.We will return to this example later.

This trend has accelerated over the last 10 to 15 years. In the phar-maceutical industry, progress in biochemistry and an increasedunderstanding of the chemical processes taking place in the humanbody have made it possible to develop different and more powerfuldrugs. Further developments in genetics are likely to lead to a betterunderstanding of how drugs can be tailored to an individual.Similarly, a better understanding of HIV structure and how itmanages to undermine the body’s immune system have made itpossible to develop a wide range of anti-HIV drugs. These drugshave significantly prolonged life for AIDS sufferers and thoseinfected with the virus, provided they can afford them. Manymodern technologies do not come cheap!

Other examples of breakthroughs in science leading to importanttechnological advances can be found in the field of computing andtelecommunications. A better understanding of optics has led to thedevelopment of fibre optic cables and an explosion in the use ofcomputer networks such as the Internet. Also, breakthroughs inelectronics have made it possible to develop more sophisticatedmusical instruments such as synthesizers.

Despite these examples of the links between science and technologyit should be noted that many modern technological advances aremade without any great breakthroughs in science. Good examples

FD12A 93

are various kitchen gadgets, many of which make life considerablyeasier for us but do not rely in any way on elaborate scientifictheories.

Technology does not always follow scientific breakthroughs

On the other hand there are examples where the basic science isunderstood and the difficulty is in applying the scientific knowledgeto build useful technologies. The structure of DNA, the famousdouble helix, has been known since the early 1950s. Crick andWatson published the paper describing the structure of DNA in1953, nearly 50 years ago. This knowledge offers exciting potentialfor genetically engineering new foods and medicines but this poten-tial has still not been fulfilled. Genetic engineers are still strugglingto find reliable ways of using this knowledge. (We will consider thisin more detail in Module 2.)

Sometimes science follows technology

An interesting Caribbean example of a technological breakthrough,in the absence of scientific knowledge, is the steel drum, alleged tobe the only new harmonic musical instrument developed in the20th century. The steel drum was developed in Trinidad by musi-cians who could not even read music. They liked its sound andlearned to manipulate steel to produce a wide range of tones andnotes although they lacked any theoretical knowledge of the scienceof harmonics. Indeed, the basic theory behind the steel drum is stillto be fully elucidated. Apart from the obvious theoretical interest,such work would allow “pan tuners” to develop a more precisesystem to tune this instrument. At present this is done purely byear. Research in this area would help to improve the manufacture ofthe instrument. It is interesting to note that although the steeldrum was invented in the Caribbean, most of the work on thescience behind the instrument is taking place outside the region. Infact, a patent has already been granted in America for one methodof manufacturing a steel drum. Research into the physics underlyingthe sound quality and the properties of the metal of steel drumsstarted at the University of the West Indies St Augustine campus inthe early 1970s, but unfortunately was never completed.

94 FD12A

ACTIVITY

1. From the passage above, give examples of modern technol-ogy that depended on scientific findings in each of thefollowing areas: physics, biochemistry, genetics.

2. Describe briefly one modern technological advance that didNOT depend on a scientific breakthrough.

3. Some important scientific breakthroughs have not producedthe great levels of technological development expectedalthough they would be of great value. Suggest why thismay be so. (You might like to use the example given in thepassage to support your reasons.)

4. Steel bands are highly developed musical instruments. Doyou think it is a waste of time trying to find out how theywork? Of what value could these scientific findings be?(Consider contributions to music, education and economicfactors.)

Technology as an enabler of science

The relationship between science and technology is not one way.Many of the advances in physics, astronomy and biology made inthe seventeenth and eighteenth century were made possible by theinvention of new instruments such as telescopes and microscopes.In his groundbreaking work on the structure of the solar system,Galileo relied heavily on observations that he made through a tele-scope, a relatively new invention at that time. In other words, anadvance in technology was an important factor in an advance inscience.

Science has continued to rely on instruments to make its observa-tions. Indeed, the reliance of science on technology has increasedsignificantly over the last 20 or 30 years. For example, virtually anyscientific observation made today relies on the use of computers, atsome stage.

This reliance on technology for scientific observation and experi-mentation also points to questions about the reliability of these

FD12A 95

observations, an issue that was discussed in the previous section inconnection with Galileo’s work. (See Module 1 Unit 2, Session 2.5.)You may recall that Galileo only gained acceptance for his observa-tions when he distributed telescopes and instructions for their use

Disagreements about the instruments that are used to gather obser-vations are still very much with us, especially in some of the socialsciences. Consider the reaction of the general public or amateurpolitical analysts to the findings of surveys or polls because theyhave no faith in the instruments (the questionnaires) used to collectthe opinions of the public. Within the biological sciences there isstill much debate about the reality of some of the detailed structuresfound in cells. Some argue that these structures do not exist inliving cells but have been created by the methods used to kill andprepare cells for viewing under electron microscopes.

Technology and paradigm shifts

Technologies and instruments for making observations often play arole in so-called paradigm shifts in science. Accepting a particularparadigm implies acceptance of the methods used to collect the dataon which the paradigm is constructed. This in turn would includeaccepting the instruments or technologies used to make the requiredobservations.

In the early 1910s most psychological research was conducted bythe use of introspection. The methodology involved psychologistsperforming certain mental tasks, such as arithmetic or the composi-tion of a poem, while simultaneously observing their own mentalactivities. The basic data used to build psychological theories werethe reports written after these introspective sessions. J. B. Watson, aprominent psychologist of the day, argued vigorously that this“technology” was unreliable and that psychology needed to followthe natural sciences and use more traditional scientific experiments.While J. B. Watson made many other claims as well, some of whichhave been subsequently rejected, his insistence on using directlyobservable empirical data, rather than data obtained from introspec-tion, has become part of the current psychological paradigm.

n Find out about themodern electronmicroscope and itscontribution toscience. Considerthe magnification andwhat advances inscience it madepossible

96 FD12A

ACTIVITY

Discuss the inter-relatedness of technology and science. In yourdiscussion consider the following aspects of the relationshipbetween the two:

1. Technological advance in the absence of scientific knowledge

2. Science promoting new technological developments

3. Technology stimulating scientific research

4. Technology enabling scientific advances

5. Technological advances promoting paradigm shifts

CRITICAL THINKING ACTIVITY

To what extent do you think modern scientists have becomeoverly dependent on technology at the expense of using theirscientific imaginations to develop new ideas?

FD12A 97

98 FD12A

The Use of Technology and the Scientist’s Responsibility

Some ethical considerationsTechnology can be misused

At 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay, an American B-29bomber, dropped an atomic bomb weighing 9000 pounds over theJapanese city of Hiroshima and nearly 140, 000 people were killed.Three days later, another bomb was unleashed on Nagasaki killing73,884 people. The fierce blast winds, heat rays reaching severalthousand degrees and deadly radiation generated by the explosionlevelled an area of 6.7 million square metres. By the end of thefollowing year several more thousand citizens that had been injuredin the blast had died from radiation related illnesses or their injuries.All told, nearly a quarter million people were killed. Which scientistsdeveloped the theories that allowed such a bomb to be built? Whodeveloped the technology required to build the bomb and thebombers? Who made the decision to use the bomb?

Who is responsible?

The story of the atomic bomb really starts with a physicist, AlbertEinstein. His famous equation, E = mc2 (and several other lesssimple ones), provided the scientific information that made thebomb possible. The Hungarian physicist, Leo Szilard was perhapsthe first to realize that the advances made in physics could beapplied to building a super weapon. In 1939, Szilard, who by thattime was living in the United States, persuaded Einstein to write toPresident Roosevelt making him aware of the possibility ofconstructing the nuclear bomb. It was President Roosevelt, whodecided to establish the so-called Manhattan Project with theexplicit mandate to construct an atomic bomb.

Szilard also took the initiative to circulate a petition among scien-

99

Session 3.2

tists working on the Manhattan Project urging President Truman,Roosevelt’s successor, not to use the bomb. The petition argued thatthe United States should not use the bomb against Japan because ofthe devastating effect that it would have. However, the petitionnever reached Truman and on his orders, the bomb was dropped.

One can draw a number of lessons from this story. The decision tobuild and indeed the decision to drop the bomb were political, notscientific, decisions. Some people believe that the scientists workingon the Manhattan Project were responsible for the annihilation ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. The scientists disagreed. They saw a cleardemarcation between their responsibilities and that of government.They accepted the responsibility of having used what they knewabout nuclear physics to construct the atomic bomb but theybelieved that it was the responsibility of the government of theUnited States to decide whether or not to use the bomb.

The issue of secrecy

A second lesson can be drawn from Szilard’s behaviour after theWar. Szilard insisted on making the implications of using the atomicbomb public. Although he had insisted on secrecy before the War, onthe obvious grounds of national security, he believed it was hisresponsibility to publicize the implications of the scientific and tech-nological breakthroughs that had been made during the ManhattanProject. Many scientists today would agree with Szilard’s position.

Most modern scientists are of the view that it is not the responsibil-ity of scientists to decide how the technologies that can be devel-oped, based on their scientific discoveries, should be used by society.However, they accept responsibility for making the public aware ofthe likely consequences of the use or abuse of these technologies. Itis then up to the politicians, who, after all, in democracies, are therepresentatives of the people, to decide whether to use the technolo-gies and, if so, how to use them.

Should the general public have a say?

A further question arises: To what extent should the people in ademocratic society be able to influence the decisions made by thepoliticians that represent them? The importance of having a scien-tifically informed and scientifically literate population is pertinent

100 FD12A

here. Very often scientists have neither the inclination nor thetalent, to present their cases in public. Journalists or other commen-tators with experience in public relations usually do this. Althoughthey often do a much better job at presenting a position than ascientist, they themselves may be biased in one way or another.Frequently, they win debates about the implications of scientificresearch hands-down even when their position is scientifically lessvalid. In the absence of an informed public the real facts thoughpublished elsewhere remain “secret”.

An equally important issue is debate and disagreement within thescientific community which is sometimes influenced by politicaland economic policies. In a recent paper presented at the School ofContinuing Studies Country Conference in Montserrat, it waspointed out that volcanologists of the Seismic Unit of the UWI, StAugustine Campus had warned the government of Montserrat ofthe likelihood of an eruption over 10 years ago. They suggested thatafter Hurricane Hugo in 1989 the opportunity be taken to rebuildthe capital in the north of the island which is relatively safe. Thesewarnings were ignored in favour of the opinions of non-Caribbeanscientists because of cost and other considerations.

Should there be restrictions on scientific enquiry?

Another controversial debate surrounds the issue of using geneticengineering techniques. Concerns about the possible misuse of thesetechnologies have overshadowed many of their possible benefits.Many individuals and governments have expressed reservationsabout the wisdom of encouraging further scientific research in thisarea. They are concerned as to whether scientists take sufficientresponsibility for the technologies that can be constructed fromtheir research efforts. Scientists are seen as meddling with nature inirresponsible ways and so highly motivated by the challenge ofmaking new discoveries that they forget to consider the social andethical implications of their work. In addition, much modern scien-tific research is funded and controlled by large and powerful corpo-rations that are largely motivated by profit. The recent debate in theUnited States about stem cell research and cloning provides a goodillustration of these and other concerns about science.

FD12A 101

Genetically modified foods – a case for caution?

The notion that scientists should take some responsibility for theoutcomes of using their discoveries might seem reasonable but itraises other problems. Scientists do not always agree about theimplications of their theories. A good example of this is the continu-ing debate on genetically modified (GM) foods. An increasingproportion of corn and soy beans in the United States is grownfrom seeds that have been genetically modified. The genetic makeupof these plants has been changed artificially in ways that benefitfarmers and consumers and in some cases the plant. In Jamaica,experiments are taking place at this moment with genetically modi-fied papaya (paw-paw) plants. These papaya plants are grown fromcells that have a gene inserted into them to make the plantsimmune to the papaya ring spot virus that affects the appearance ofthe fruits.

Some scientists argue that genetic modification is nothing new.They argue that selective breeding techniques used by dog ownersor flower growers have led to significant genetic modification andthat genetic engineering is merely a way of speeding up the selectivebreeding process. Other scientists disagree because genetic engineer-ing does more than just “speed up” selective breeding. Genes can,and are, inserted from other species. For example, Brazil nut genesare put into soybean plants, forming what can be considered newspecies of plants. Since we cannot be sure what this new “species”may turn out to be they urge caution when it comes to plantingand growing genetically modified foods. (For more on GM foods andbiotechnology see Module 2 Unit 5).

Who decides?

Despite the obvious problem with the position that scientistsshould be responsible for making the implications of their discover-ies public, and leave the decision on how to use the resulting tech-nologies to the public at large or their representatives, thealternatives are probably even less desirable. This could mean leav-ing the decisions of what to do with technologies up to scientistswhich is clearly inappropriate. Not all scientists and technologistsseem to be aware of the moral and ethical concerns of others.

102 FD12A

This is well illustrated by the activities of some researchers in Franceand Italy who are insisting on cloning a human being using thetechniques that allowed veterinarians in Edinburgh, Scotland toclone Dolly the sheep. They persist in their right to this researchpath despite major moral objections from large parts of the popula-tion. Presumably they will proceed in secret but what are the conse-quences of allowing such individuals to do their work in secrecy?

Keeping scientific discoveries secret is likely to retard scientificprogress. Typically, science progresses by scientists building onearlier work in their field of interest. Obviously, if such work werekept secret, it would be much harder to achieve scientific progress.

The importance of sharing scientific information among scientistsserves a very useful purpose. By publishing their work in journals,participating in conferences, and publishing their dissertations scien-tists (and all other researchers) are presenting their findings andideas to the wider academic public for criticisms and suggestions.This review of work by their peers is an essential component ofacademic progress. It keeps scientists “on their toes”, so to speak,and gives them ideas for carrying forward their work. There aresome problems with the peer review process, however, not the leastof which is the unacknowledged use of other people's ideas anddestructive criticism, both motivated by competitive interests.

Finally, it would obviously be good if political decisions were madeon the basis of well-informed opinions. The decision whether toallow the planting of genetically modified crops can only be maderesponsibly if the people and their representatives have access to asmany of the relevant facts and scientific theories as possible. Clearly,this requires that this knowledge be made public. It also requires apublic capable of understanding the information they receive.

The position that scientists make the consequences of their discov-eries public but the public decides how to use the technologies madepossible by these scientific discoveries is fraught with problems.However, like democracy, although far from perfect, it is probablythe best alternative we have.

103FD12A 103

ACTIVITY

Clearly the above discussion is not final. There are differentways of looking at the issues discussed. You probably have yourown views on the matter.

Prepare BOTH sides of a debate on one of the following moots:

1. Scientists have no responsibility for what is done with theirwork.

2. Governments have the responsibility to make decisions onbehalf of the people as to how technology is used.

3. The average citizen should not be concerned with the usesof science and technology because they do not know enoughabout them.

Suggestion: Arrange a debate with fellow students or colleagues.If they are not following this course, share what you know withthem, to help them prepare for it.

SUMMARY

In this unit the following points were raised:

n Technology has had an important impact on our daily lives.Much of modern technology is based on the results of scientificresearch.

n Science and technology are not the same. Science is a search forunderstanding how the world around us works, it seeks to offerexplanations for natural phenomena and build theories from whichpredictions can be made. Technology can be defined as a set of toolsand techniques for controlling and changing the environment.

n Modern science and technology are interdependent. Sometimestechnology advances because of science and other times technologyprovides the tools or the stimulus for scientific breakthroughs.However, technology sometimes advances without any help from

104 FD12A

science (as it did in ancient times) and putting some scientific ideasto work has proved problematic.

n In discussing the responsibility of scientists and technologists itwas agreed that they are responsible only for making the implica-tions of using their work public. The final decision as to howscience and its applications are used rests with the public and theirrepresentatives. However, to discharge this responsibility effectivelythe public must become scientifically literate.

FD12A 105