Liza Kroeschell

World and Science Interactions

04/26/2012
The Scale of Humanity
Intellectuals solve problems. Geniuses prevent them --Albert Einstein
A scientist ponders the ability of an electron to teleport at the nano scale. A single mother
loses her job and her home when the Fukushima meltdown displaces her family. A
businesswoman feels sick and worries that her paycheck will suffer if her boss watches video
surveillance of the office and notices her frequent trips to the bathroom. A grandmother struggles
to communicate with her grandchildren, who spend their days updating Facebook statuses.
Scientific advancements make lives easier and save time for people all over the world;
however, these advancements have potential to complicate ethical, safety and legal standards.
The world, in turn, decides whether scientific advancements are worth the risks.
The debate over nuclear energy demonstrates this point. While nuclear energy presents
the easiest answer to the worlds energy crisis as a clean, accessible source, it is also dangerous
and under-regulated.
The low cost and accessibility of nuclear energy due to an assuaged need for imported
fuel makes nuclear energy an attractive energy option; nuclear energy is available anywhere that
a plant can be built, while engineers extract fossil fuels from limited locations on Earth. Also,
unlike any renewable energy source, nuclear energy transports efficiently and could heat and
cool homes worldwide 24/7 (Nuclear Aftershocks).
!
Nuclear energy does not contribute to smog or climate change through carbon emissions
(Luna, Tufts). Countries without nuclear energy rely on fossil fuels to provide electricity until
research uncovers a cleaner, safer alternative. With limited access to the cleanest fossil fuels,
some countries rely on sands and tar--materials that pollute the environment more than standard
fossil fuels (Nuclear Aftershocks). Using these materials to bridge the gap between nuclear
energy and renewable energy sources is an irresponsible practice.
Unfortunately, nuclear energy is unsafe. For example, although nuclear energy produces
little waste, this waste does not fully decay for 10,000 years (Luna, Tufts); during this time,
governments must safely store this waste. No government has agreed on an appropriate,
standardized system for storing nuclear waste that doesnt involve keeping it contained in nuclear
power plants for 10,000 years (Wessel-Kroeschell). Without such a plan, nuclear energy does not
present a viable alternative to our energy problems.
Second, nuclear power plants are potential terrorism targets because they can cause
world-wide damage and nuclear engineers struggle to secure them. Terrorists could also use
nuclear waste to build weapons (Luna, Tufts).
Governments could advance the safety of nuclear energy with regulation; unfortunately,
governments under-regulate nuclear power plants. For instance, 47 of 104 nuclear reactors in the
United States do not meet fire safety standards imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(Nuclear Aftershocks) and the owners of these plants do not hold legal responsibility in the event
of a meltdown (Wessel-Kroeschell). Failed or slow implementations of regulatory policies, such
1

as these, lead to nuclear meltdowns such as Fukushima, which misplaced and endangered people
and the environment and will require decades of cleaning to control (Nuclear Aftershocks).
In the case of nuclear energy, science has presented the world a simple alternative to
fossil fuels and the world must decide whether this simplicity is worth the danger posed by the
source.
Similar to nuclear energy, electronic surveillance offers a simple solution with
complications. Electronic surveillance allows law enforcement to easily and effectively catch and
penalize delinquents, criminals or those disobeying a city ordinance--whether they be schoolyard bullies, poor drivers, lazy workers or international spies. However, electronic surveillance
has limits and can breach personal freedoms.
Electronic surveillance discourages people from doing bad things. For example, on
school campuses, cameras lead to a decrease in vandalism and theft (Oseguera). Records
produced from electronic surveillance also provide criminal investigators clearer understandings
of criminal activities (Oseguera).
Unfortunately, electronic surveillance cannot cover every corner of a public area
susceptible to delinquent activity and sends a message of distrust to those under surveillance,
which can cause latent functions. For instance, drivers tend to overreact in the presence of a
trafficcamera and slam on the breaks to drive at the speed limit or avoid strolling through a
yellow light. This behavior can cause accidents that the electronic surveillance strives to
discourage.
Many believe that electronic surveillance of schools, buses, workplaces, and stop lights
violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution, which declares the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures (Oseguera). These people wonder if those monitoring electronic surveillance learn
about the books we read and the people to which we talk. Since most of the people caught on
camera by electronic surveillance do nothing wrong, electronic surveillance might embody an
unwarranted search and abridge United States citizens right to privacy.
In the case of electronic surveillance, science has presented the world a simple method
for catching delinquents, bullies and criminals and the world must decide whether these
advantages outweigh the message of distrust and ethical complications presented by electronic
surveillance.
Like nuclear energy and electronic surveillance, the internet has changed the world in
many positive ways, but has potential to negatively affect social interactions throughout the
world by becoming an addiction and encouraging the need for constant stimulation.
When my parents grew up, writing papers involved hours in the library, a stack of old
journals and card catalogues. Dinner table questions such as, how old is Robert Redford?
remained unanswered. Missing a favorite TV show meant missing it forever (WesselKroeschell). As a college student in 2012, I can perform a large chunk of preliminary research
from my dorm room, answer silly questions with a few clicks and watch the TV episode I missed
a week after the show originally aired. The internet facilitates all of these possibilities.
Although the internet connects people all over the world efficiently and at little cost
(Bailey), it creates a divide between internet-obsessed generations and internet-ignorant
generations. To demonstrate this point, my grandma, unfamiliar with the internet, and my
2

cousins, who spend most of their time online, dont effectively communicate with each other
because my grandma doesnt understand my cousins need for constant stimulation; while she
could sit and talk for hours over a cup of tea, they would need to text, scroll through their
Facebook news-feeds or listen to music to remain alert for the same amount of time.
Additionally, the internet can become an addiction (Bailey). My brother, for example,
used to play outside and enjoy long summer days at the pool. As he grew older and spent more
time online, the internet became a huge part of his life. Although he interacts with his friends
online, plays games, and learns through the web, the internet has changed my brothers social
life; my mom struggles to bring him to parades, community events, extra curricular activities and
the dinner table--places at which he used to thrive.
In the case of the internet, science has presented the world with a massive, accessible and
cheap social networking system and the world must decide if these benefits are worth the
internets aptitude for addiction and potential to change the worlds social atmosphere.


As with nuclear energy, electronic surveillance and the internet, nanotechnology exposes
sciences relationship with the world as one of benefits versus risks. Nanotechnology is exciting
and simplifies complex dilemmas such as our energy crisis and hunger for small, compact
memory storage. However, because nanotechnology follows the laws of quantum physics, does
not follow the law, e=mc^2, and has a mass which is not in proportion to its volume, scientists
understand little about effects of nanotechnology on humans or the environment (Salvi).


Nanotechnology is ubiquitous. I cant imagine a world without my iPhone.
Nanotechnology has potential to prematurely detect disease, become a source of renewable
energy, even cure cancer (Salvi). The promises of nanotechnology have led to a race among
nations for its first major breakthrough. To demonstrate the extent of the worlds excitement for
this technology, the United States 2012 federal budget invested 2.1 billion dollars in
nanotechnology (Luna, Nanotechnology).


The same characteristics of science at the nanoscale that suggest so much potential also
complicate the issue. Technology that doesnt follow traditional laws of physics and has surface
area not proportional to mass dumbfounds scientists.


Because electrons at the nanoscale can perform crazy tricks such as teleporting from
atom to atom, nano-sunscreen, for example, has potential to penetrate skin and enter the blood
stream, where nano-particles could lodge into vital organs and modify cell function (Salvi).
Many worry that, wherever nanotechnology exists, humans consume it. Nano-particles can enter
the body through a simple inhalation (Salvi).


Also, because scientists do not understand nanotechnologys decay process, governments
cannot develop a safe disposal method. Some worry that nano-materials will mix with other
compounds to create toxins, accumulate in the ecosystem by failing to decompose, interfere with
plant and animal life at the cellular level, and contribute to pollution by carrying or fortifying
pollutants (Salvi).


Those in favor of nanotechnology point out that no evidence suggests these risks.
However, not knowing if something is harmful doesnt make it safe. These particles have entered
homes, offices, the environment before research confirmed the safety of nanotechnology, turning
humans into test subjects and confronting the world with not only a health and safety issue, but
an ethical dilemma as well (Salvi).


In the case of nanotechnology, science has proposed a scientific advancement with huge,
untapped potential and the world must decide whether pursuit of nanotechnology is worth its
3

potential to harm humans and the environment due to lack of current knowledge. As George A.
Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment wrote in the Los Angeles Times,

Putting...nano products into the market without assessing the potential risks is
like trying to get an Apollo capsule to the moon without knowing whether the rocket
carrying it will explode on the way (Salvi).

In Albert Einsteins quote from the beginning of the essay, he may have been reflecting
on the different ways in which the world reacts to science, such as nuclear energy, electronic
surveillance, the internet and nanotechnology.


For example, while intellectuals solve the worlds energy crisis by replacing fossil fuels
with nuclear energy, geniuses prevent the crisis by investing in alternative energy research,
investing in public transportation, imposing a gas tax to discourage consumption, helping home
owners become energy-conservers and passing energy efficiency regulations for new
construction. All of the above alternatives are safe, ethical and legal.


While intellectuals discourage delinquency through electronic surveillance, geniuses
prevent delinquency by rewarding good teachers, implementing more effective drivers education
programs, investing in a larger and stronger police force, and creating happy work environments
that encourage productivity. All of the above alternatives are safe, ethical and legal.


While intellectuals might do most work and social interaction online, where it is
convenient, geniuses recognize the limits of the internet and potential for internet addiction;
while geniuses benefit from the opportunities provided by the internet, they limit online activity
because they realize the significance of field research and family dinners, cultivating a safer
social environment that includes everyone--even grandmas.


While intellectuals value the simplicity that nanotechnology provides through iPhones
and teflon cookware, geniuses realize the threats to the environment and human health posed by
nanotechnology and insist on a better understanding of the technology before allowing the
government to pour millions of dollars into an industry that tests its products on humans without
knowledge of the side effects, avoiding safety, ethical and legal conflicts.


Science throws opportunities for ease and simplicity to the world. The manner in which
the world responds determines the question: Are we intellectuals or geniuses?

Works Cited
Bailey, Alexis. "The Internet." World and Science Interactions. Dominican University of

California, San Rafael. 15 Mar. 2012. Lecture.

Luna, Alexis, and Maia Tufts. "Nuclear Energy." World and Science Interactions. Dominican

University of California, San Rafael. 10 Apr. 2012. Lecture.

Luna, Alexis. "Nanotechnology." World and Science Interactions. Dominican University of

California, San Rafael. 28 Feb. 2012. Lecture.

Nuclear Aftershocks. Dir. Jon Parlferman. By Miles O'Brien and Jon Palferman. PBS Frontline.

Public Broadcasting Service, 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Oseguera, Maria. "Electronic Surveillance." World and Science Interactions. Dominican

University of California, San Rafael. 16 Feb. 2012. Lecture.

Salvi, Aatish, and George A. Kimbrell. "Nanotech: Yay or Nay?" Los Angeles Times. 29 Feb.

2008. Web. 21 Apr. 2012.

Wessel-Kroeschell, Beth. "Science in Government." Telephone interview. 25 Apr. 2012.