1. 1
Science under the Microscope: Exploring the Interchange between
Science and Society
Chelsea Smith
SOC 495
Mary DeYoung

2. 2
I. Course Title:
Science Under the Microscope: Exploring the Interchange BetweenScience and
US Society.
I chose this title because it plays off of the fact that in biology, when biologists
are exploring a specific organism, they generally look at it under some type of
microscope. This is essentially what this class will be doing. This class will be looking at
how science influences society, and how society influences scientific research. Because
of this fact, the title makes sense because there is a dialogue happening between science
and society. These two institutions are constantly exchanging information and
influencing each other. For this reason, I chose the word “interchange” because as one is
happening it is changing the other, and vice versa. I made sure to specify that the
interchange would be concerning US society only because I think for a college
undergraduate class, most students find topics more interesting if they can relate to the
topic in some way. Having the focus of the class be on US society may help to make the
subjects more “real” for the students and help them to think about the topics in an easier
way. Relating topics to a student’s personal life helps to promote critical thinking and
perhaps even positive social change.
II. Course Description:
Science shapes our everyday lives. How science has shaped our understanding of
the world around us, specifically within the realms of gender, race, sexuality, technology,
and knowledge? Furthermore, how has society shaped the way in which science conducts
research? These questions (and more) will be discussed in this engaging class about the

3. 3
sociology of science. We will be focusing on the history of each topic, and then how
through time these topics have changed or influenced our US society. This class will
focus on the combination of history and biography that takes place in any sociological
subject to better give a constructive critique on science in the past and in today.
Course requirements: An open mind. A zest for learning.
III. Instructor Information:
My roots began with a start, majoring in biology. Slowly, I started to transition to
the stimulating critiques, critical thinking, and abstract thought of a few sociology
classes. I fell in love with sociology and decided that this was the direction my life should
take. My initial career in sociology birthed as a sociology minor, which very quickly
turned into another major. So by the time I was done, I had successfully obtained two
degrees from GVSU, one in Biology and one in Sociology. Once I had found my love in
sociology (at last!) I decided to take it to the next level. I moved forward, receiving my
PhD. at UC Berkley, studying the sociology of health care and medicalization.
IV. Course Introduction:
Science is both a wonderful necessity and a curse. Science has provided such
wonderful advancements with technology and in the medical field. It has helped us to
breach galaxies, discover the very essence of our biological make-up, provided countless
explanations and cures for diseases, and even let man walk on the moon. However,
science, as most things in our society, can also be a force of devastation and oppression.

4. 4
This class presents a critical view of science through the conflict perspective to see the
other side of science that is not well highlighted within our culture. This side is the side
of science that is subjective to the influence of society and shows how science changes
the way that society manifests itself through its research and its discoveries. Science and
knowledge have been seen as logical and objective, but is this really always the case?
While the scientific method and the scientific paradigms that exist today are excellent
ways to obtain knowledge, one must ask the question: is this the only way? This course
will address all of these critiques and more.
A. Essential Questions:
1) How is scientific knowledge constructed? Why do we use the scientific
method, and how has this method influenced science?
2) How has the concept of gender been socially constructed by science? How
has the way society views the dichotomous idea of gender influenced
scientific research?
3) How has science viewed race? Does race affect scientific research?
4) Are the concepts of sexuality the same for society as they are in science?
5) How has scientific research affected technology?
B. Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the course, the student will have learned:
1) Scientific paradigms exist that have influenced the way in which we construct
learning science, and participate in scientific research. We use the scientific

5. 5
method as a way to gage consistency within science. We hypothesize and test
to measure certain variables against control variables and report our findings
as a way to keep the process open and available for critiques, but the process
itself has not been critiqued for a long time. The philosophy behind science
has begun to disappear and more and more institutions are supporting “cook-
book science” as a way to teach students how to perform the scientific
method, without stimulating critical thinking within the discipline.
2) Gender is defined in a scientific way as “male” and “female”, although many
different genetic variations exist. Within the natural world, there is no such
thing as “Gender” except for within our species. Society has influenced the
way that science views males and females and what kinds of behaviors should
be expressed by these two gender norms.
3) Racism has existed even within the scientific community. Although science
has found that there is more similarity between two individuals of different
races than differences, certain parts of history such as the Tuskegee
experiment show that racism was alive and thriving even within the scientific
community. This has affected the way that racial minorities view science and
how they take part in medical research.
4) Society’s view of human sexuality has greatly influenced the way that
scientific research was conducted and continues to be conducted. Beginning
with the way that Gay men were blamed for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the
1980’s gave the scientific community and the media a negative view of the
disease outside of just the physiological ramifications that go along with the

6. 6
disease. It has also influenced the way in which scientific research is brought
to the attention of others within society, such as with the research involving
the “Gay Gene”.
5) Technology is a wonderful thing that has increased the productivity and ease
of life for many people in society. It has promoted communication,
transportation, medical advancements and more, but there is another side of
technology as well, a side that is controlled by corporate interests. Since the
beginning of the industrial revolution, people have been oppressed by
capitalism through the means of technology. This still occurs today through
medical research for companies with ulterior motives and money-making
endeavors. The proletariat is still being oppressed through these means in
many way.
C. Class Format:
First, I would like the students to use their sociological imagination to discuss
how science is affected by society and how society is affect by science. The class format
will be reading the material (1 article/week) and then having the students write
stimulating and thought provoking essays where the students are expressing their
knowledge of the topics. With this format, each topic will take two weeks, the first week
focusing on the history of the topic, and the second week, how it’s portrayed in society
today. Each paper would occur after the two-week period. I feel this helps the students to
better absorb the information given to them and helps to give them freedom to bring in
their own points and views. I would like the students to write a paper at the end of the
class relaying the ways in which they see science being affected by influencing in

7. 7
society. An example of this is the way in which the LGBT community is viewed in
society is affecting the way that science researches this topic. I would love for the
students to watch GATTACA, which is a movie about human genomics, placed in the
future where people are solely reduced to their genome and genetic modifications that
have been discovered. Those without genetic modifications are seen as “lower”. This
movie will help to beautifully illustrate the way that society can be influenced by science,
specifically in ways that may not be the primary reason that the research is conducted. It
shows how even though gene-therapy could be a tremendous medical advancement, if it
is used for the wrong purposes, it could actually hinder society. Many things in science
have this potential, and its this misuse that will be a focus of the class.
V. Required Reading:
A) Sexuality:
Epstein, Steven, 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of
Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. 47-78.
This article articulates the ideas of the 1980’s AIDS epidemic. Its highlights the
start of the AIDS epidemic, beginning with the few homosexual men who contracted the
disease, and the way that they died from a very rare form of cancer. It then talks about the
way that the disease was highly associated with homosexual men, even though of 8% of
the cases were among heterosexual people, and one of the cases was even a woman.

8. 8
Although these incidents occurred, the news went forward in their stereotypes with the
disease, calling the disease “The Gay Compromise Syndrome.” The disease continued to
be attributed to the gay population long into the ‘80’s even with more cases of infants and
heterosexual people getting the disease. The article articulates the fact that the medical
community had a very profound role in how the public viewed this specific disease. Once
the flood gates had been opened, the attribution could not be stopped. The article is a
good review of the history of AIDS and the impacts that it had on society, including the
gay community and even how it was perceived by gay doctors. The article also talks
about how most of the scientific community views disease as coming from mostly
bacterial causes at this point and time and how most doctored viewed diseases as having
one cause that could be fixed through one treatment. This article would be a great article
to teach within a class about the sociology of science because it beautifully articulates the
fact that how diseases are viewed by scientific communities and is present to lay people
HIGHLY effects how lay people view the disease. If a certain disease has attributes that
are associated with it, those diseases are then also associated with a certain population.
The stigma of the disease can then be carried over to that population, so in the case of
AIDS, it was a disease that a higher chance of affecting a certain population, but the
feelings towards the disease were then also transferred to the population that it was
affecting. Since AIDS was dangerous, disgusting, weird, and deadly, those adjectives
were then also associated with that population.
Conrad, Peter and Susan Markens. 2001. Constructing the Gay Gene in the News:
Optimism and Skepticism in the US and British Press. Heath 5 (3): 373-400.

9. 9
Only a decade after the discovery of AIDS in the 1980’s, scientists and the media
began talks about a “gay gene”. Conrad and Markens both researched how print media
presented the idea of a gay gene, found in scientific papers who reported on the genetic
marker. The paper specifically looks at these reports in US and British texts. The
introduction of the article first addresses how science first began to look for
commonalities between families with gay individuals and how these studies tried to find
a link between genetics and a predisposition towards a sexual preference for those
individuals of the same sex. The paper talks about specific studies, like the twin
experiments, Dean Hamers paper which first openly talked about a genetic marker, and
then other studies that pointed towards a genetic link. The paper focuses on the media
reported on these findings more than the actual discoveries. It goes on to talk about the
many ways that media constructs knowledge, and how these constructions affect the
opinion of the individuals within these places. The researchers used a comparative
method to compare the two different samples and how each responded to the “finding” of
the gay gene, and then how each affected the opinion of the two populations. They
sampled newspapers and other print media to analyze these comparisons. The article says
that in the US, most of the newspapers reported heavily on the gay gene, but in news
magazines, it was less reported. Headlines began to talk about the gay gene once Science
started to report on the marker on the X chromosome that supposedly meant a
predisposition to being gay. Both if these articles first discussed men being gay as
opposed to women being lesbian. The reports were all front line news for US newspapers,
and the article identifies “cautious optimism” as the way that the newspapers addressed

10. 10
opinions towards the research. It cautioned the audience about behavioral genetic studies,
since this was a hard field to prove, and had been proven wrong in the past. The British
press had a different angle. They were apprehensive of what the findings would mean for
the gay community, specifically concerning eugenics. Overall, the article will be very
useful for understanding the different ways that scientific problems can be viewed by the
general public. Science tries its best to be “objective”, but unfortunately, this is not
always the case, specifically regarding things like sexuality. People will always have
views about sexuality and these views spark specific feelings about the subject which can
invoke particular movements and social ramifications for scientific discoveries. Although
science can be “factual”, how the fact is perceived can be highly influential, and should
be of concern. The article does a fantastic job of illustrating this point.
B) Gender:
Rosario, Vernon A.. 2004. Transforming Sex: An Interview with Joanne
Meyerowitz, PhD. Author of How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the
Studies in Gender and Sexuality. 5: (4) 473-483.
In her book, “How Sex Changed: A History of Transsexuality in the Studies in
Gender and Sexuality, Joanne Meyerowitz explains the medical history of transsexuality
and how it has influenced society. This article gives a lovely background about why this
book was necessary and the history behind the book. It acts as a synthesis for the book
which will be good for this class. It starts with the history of the book, citing the
experiences of the very first person to undergo the first sex-reassignment surgery,

11. 11
Christine Jorgensen. This surgery sparked a huge outcry in the medical society and was
surrounded by media attention. Even today, the amount of hormones that an individual
receives to transition and the way that the surgeries are performed are debated by the
medical community. The author explains that she wanted to show how this minority
group attempts to show themselves within society in the postwar US. She also discusses
how when getting research sources for her book, she was denied access to records at John
Hopkins because the scientists were worried about how they would be portrayed in her
book. The author of the book mentions in the interview that her best sources came from
the letters of people who wrote to doctors about the surgery, but very little was known
about these people’s race and class. She also discusses how in the 1950’s and 60’s there
was much discussion between scientists and doctors about the “explanation” for
transsexuality and whether a psychological or biological explanation existed. She says
that biologists and were more likely to endorse sex-change surgery, but psychoanalysts
said that transsexuality was a mental disorder. It also talks about how transsexuality has
redefined our definitions of “gay” and “lesbian”. This article shows the history
surrounding sexual identity and the ways that science, and its many fields, influence the
view of sexuality within society. While the biological society was very much in favor of
sex reconstructive surgery, the psychological society was not in favor of this, attempting
to leave sexuality and gender as a part of the brain. Its interesting to see how different
parts of society hold onto different ideologies that coexist with a particular viewpoint.
This article is a great introduction to how gender is viewed by many different aspects of
science and how this is seen in society today.
Richard, Sarah. 2012. Sexing the X: How the X Became the “Female

12. 12
Chromosome.” Signs. 37 (4): 909-933.
This article touches on how gender has long been defined as being something that
a person is based with. Specifically as being something that a person is based with.
Specifically with our human chromosomes, we identify males as having an Y and an X
chromosome, and females as having two X chromosomes. Recently, it was found that the
X chromosome, which was long associated by scientists to code for “female” traits also
holds the genetic material that will code for masculine traits. It discusses how many of
the physical attributes of people are gendered, such as eggs and sperm, or sexing the X
chromosome. It goes on to explore the roots of female gendering of the X chromosome,
starting in the 1950’s. It speaks about the way that gender is used in scientific writing
today, arguing for three specifically: The way that the X and Y chromosomes are
generally compared as being “opposite”, secondly, that there is a battle between the two
chromosomes, as in, one is “better” or “more resilient” than the other, and third in the
way that scientists attribute the X and Y chromosomes as having codes of masculinity
and femininity, that only these two chromosomes contribute to one’s identity as a woman
or man. It then begins the grueling task of decoding the reason that the x chromosome
became predominately female. This article is an excellent example of the way that
objectivity escapes modern scientists, no matter how hard they try. If we as humans
constantly try to make our discoveries fit some sort of binary, then that is how we will
perceive scientific research. When we think with a dichotomous mind about gender and
how this MUST be affected by our genes, we automatically associate or attribute certain
differences to our sexes. The way that scientists inherently attribute masculine traits only
with the Y chromosome, shows that females are the “standard” with our little X

13. 13
chromosomes, and only an “other” can give the magnificence of maleness, and that since
ONLY men have Y chromosomes, it must be this, alone, that makes a male masculine,
that it can only be a difference from a deviance in being woman that a man can be a man.
Even the way that science is viewed through its interpretation is highly subjective to our
own understandings of gender. What if the amount of genes on a chromosome attribute
the way that we express gender, or perhaps that its not the presence of the Y chromosome
that makes a man, male, but the interaction of the Y chromosome with the X
chromosome? The fact that we only see a binary of gender in our status quo means that
the scientific community will only LOOK for this binary in research.
C) Race:
Social Science & Medicine Volume 52, Issue 5, March 2001, Pages 797–808 African
Americans’ views on research and the Tuskegee Syphilis study Vicki S Freimutha,
Sandra Crouse Quinnb, Stephen B Thomasc, Galen Colea, Eric Zookd, Ted
Duncana.
This article looks at the way that African Americans view medical research in
comparison to the past medical research that was performed on African Americans, and
how that affects medical research today. The study was done with focus group consisting
of 60 African American people in many US cities. The paper makes a very good point of
mentioning that inclusion of a very large diverse range of people is important for medical
research today. Without a diverse range of people, the information that we collect for
insight is highly limited. The research found that many African Americans had an

14. 14
incomplete view of what actually happened in the Tuskegee Study, and some had very
incorrect information. The article also points out that regardless of socioeconomic status,
misconceptions were seen. Research showed that most African Americans have a very
limited understanding of research, and that this could influence the reason that African
American’s participate in research. The other problem that the paper addresses is
concerning trust between researcher and subject. This must be established if we are to
continue research in the future, but with the past (especially concerning the Tuskegee
study) it can be difficult to establish trust between researcher and subject. This study is
highly useful for the fact that it beautifully illustrates how the way that how science has
viewed from the past can affect how research is done today. It clearly shows that if a
researcher is not careful with how research is done and affecting the communities of
subjects that its studying, it could easily hinder that research in the future or even ruin it
altogether. Because of the atrocity that occurred during the Tuskegee Study, it is likely
that African Americans are more hesitant to participate in studies today. This leads to the
segregation of information between medical research on black people and white people.
This kind of segregation can greatly hinder science and its understanding of the world,
since it limits the ways in which we can harvest knowledge.
Reardon, Jennifer. 2001. The Human Genome Diversity Project: A Case Study of
Coroduction. Social Studies of Science. 31 (3): 357-388.
Reardon clearly talks about the point of this article being an exploratory look into
the ways that the Human Genome Project has been surrounded by social issues,
specifically concerning the Diversity Project, which has tried to collect DNA samples

15. 15
from indigenous people around the globe. This research has been surrounded by
controversial issues such as: colonization, relationships between developing countries and
industrial countries, and the right of science to get this data at a potential cost to the
native people of lands around the world. One problem that the paper points out is
informed consent. How sure are the researchers that their subjects actually know what the
research is doing and how it is using their blood and/or tissues? Another issue was that
people were going to use this information, and essentially the genetic information of
indigenous people, to make a profit. Is it right to use these people to make money, if none
of it is going back into the communities that are supplying the information in the first
place? Also of concern was the way that “Experts” in the field were constructing groups
of people, based on the research that they collected. Diversity Project organizers were
wary of the way scientists were identifying these people, and how this may change the
way that the peole saw themselves and their group identity. These issues are great to dive
into the ways that science influences the social world around us and how ethics play a
vital role in science. While the researchers might think that their experiments are
completely without bias or social construction, the information that they receive and the
way that it is classified can have serious repercussions for the people that they are
researching. Furthermore, the dynamic between scientist and subject, between the
industrialized North against the developing South is of great concern. How these people
are being affected by science and research should be looked at, and what it means for
their groups.
D) Technology:

16. 16
Merton, Robert K. 1938. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century
England. The University of Chicago Press. Vol 4: (480-486)
This book’s primary focus is the roots of modern science and its patronage. The
section of the chapter from this book that I want students to focus on talks about the
protestant work ethic and how this has transitioned into the “ethic” of science and
technology today. There is an emphasis on the scientific movement and the movement
away from humanism. This section focuses on the way that science was portrayed in
“New England” specifically. Science was brought the US through correspondence and
direct contact with scientists from Europe. It discusses the way in which science took
over secondary education and how professors of the time wanted to line up the theoretical
framework of science with real world application. This section sets up a very good look
at the history to which technology was born into. It was very much controlled by religion
and religious views which could account for the reason that science went so hard into the
mentality of defending itself against the religious opposition. Furthermore, this section
articulates the fast way that science and technology entered into the US. It was a process
of not only seeking information, but a process of keeping up with other parts of the
world, specifically England. This process lead to a very hard approach to scientific
discovery and technological advancements in the US, which can be argued is still present
in the modern day. I hope that this article gives student’s insight into the reason that
countries and companies compete with each other to come up with answers or cures. The
arms race that exists in society today within the scientific community can be both a
blessing and a curse for the discipline. Sometimes when information is trying to be
process quickly, things can be overlooked and mistakes can happen for the pure reason of

17. 17
competition. Furthermore, the oppression of those who work in the bottom end of
scientific lab research is very relevant. I hope that this section of the article gives students
a backdrop for which to place the starting point of this kind of mentality.
Sismondo, Sergio. 2011. Corporate Disguises in Medical Science: Dodging the
Interest Repertoire. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. 31: 482-494.
This article expresses the problems that exist within the scientific community
surrounding the way that research is conducted. It talks about the research that is
performed by companies who hire academic researchers for specific motives. The article
describes the process of what the author calls “ghost managed” drug approval where the
medical research and literature is presented to physicians. These companies also hire
people to speak on behalf of their drugs, which during the process pharmaceutical
corporations can hide their interest behind the research and the marketing. One
astounding example of this is with Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), which was
marketed as a way for menopausal women. Menopause was seen as some sort of
deficiency within women, and the drug was marketed to fix this. The use of these HRT
drugs actually lead to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer and increased
cardiovascular disease. The paper goes on to explain the lawsuits that followed and the
ramifications of the drugs. The author also gives a definition of his term “Ghost
Manager” and describes in detail what this means. This article is great because it
specifically shows the way that technology can be used for the means of profit only and
not necessarily for the good of humankind. These corporate interest groups use
technology and science as a money making endeavor, which is harmful enough in the

18. 18
capitalist society and within our economic system, but this thirst for money has now even
carried over into our medical field. Drug pharmaceutical companies use very unsafe
practices by supporting the sale and marketing of drugs that could potentially not be safe
for society. Because of TV and the internet, these companies can market these drugs not
only to the experts who will be administering them, but also to the patients for which
these drugs are causing harm. Because of these reasons, it’s good to show this critical
side of medical advancements and the way that technology plays a role in science and
scientific research.
E) Knowledge:
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago. PG: 92 - 110.
Chapter 9 of Kuhn’s book is concerned with the way that scientific revolutions
occur and why they are necessary in our society. Its starts out by pointing out the fact that
most of a scientific revolution is persisted by the scientific community and the need for
science to meet specific problems. The chapter also illustrates the parallel between
scientific discoveries and politics. He talks about how when many ideas are formulated
surrounding a certain problem, generally there exists competition between the two
parties. Most of the time this involves one side trying to press forward for new scientific
revolution and the other trying to keep the paradigm much the same. Because of general
splits within parts of the scientific community, Kuhn says there is a push where then the
only way to stop the conflict is to bring it to “mass persuasion” which he often says is
done through force. The chapter explains the circularity that exists within each scientific

19. 19
paradigm and that a paradigm can only be defended within itself, using its own logic. He
also states. “Granting that paradigm rejection has been a historic fact, does it illuminate
more than human credulity and confusion? Are there intrinsic reasons why the
assimilation of either a new sort of phenomenon or a new scientific theory must demand
the rejection of an older paradigm?” This passage is a great topic to bring up about the
social construction that exists within knowledge. The reason that we get rid of “old
science” is to make way for new scientific discoveries, but what if parts of the old
paradigm can be useful? Perhaps part of the old logic that formulated specific scientific
discoveries should not be lost completely in replacement for new paradigms. Kuhn’s
wish for the future is that, “New sorts of phenomena would simply disclose order in an
aspect of nature where none has been seen before. In the evolution of science new
knowledge would replace ignorance rather than replace knowledge of another and
incompatible sort.” These are important aspects to point out to the young scientific mind,
that had a student not been introduced to this way of thinking in the past, they may not
realize. All knowledge and the reason for the “status quo” within even the scientific
community is very much socially constructed. Thomas Kuhn illustrates this point
beautifully to expose the way that scientific knowledge occurs and is created or
destroyed.
Arksey, Hilary. 1994. Expert and lay participation in the construction of medical
knowledge. Sociology of Health and Illness 16: (4): 448-470
This study looks at an analysis of the development within the health care field of
Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI). The paper points out that the main point of the paper is to

20. 20
show that scientific knowledge is not necessarily discovered by scientists, but that the
knowledge of the medical field is greatly influenced by the general public as well as by
experts. It points out that there exists a validation that must occur for research to be used
in the medical field where not only scientists but agree, but also many social groups
surrounding the scientific communities. One source of this pressure that the article
discusses is through RSI support groups. They produce information through
questionnaires and discussions with sufferers that greatly shape the way that scientific
research is conducted. This article does an amazing job at articulating the way that certain
forces influence science today. Especially when it comes to what we know about science
and how science is actually “discovered”. Much of the “leads” that scientists get about
specific diseases come from very specific populations and organizations. These
organizations have their own subjective motives, anywhere from improving the lives of
sufferers, to making money off of scientific research. Many lay people put far too much
of an emphasis on the understanding of health care professionals, which may not always
be the only source of knowledge. We can only know as much about diseases as we are
willing to look and for much the health care field, the places to look start with the way
that society perceives specific diseases. Its for this reason that this article would be
excellent to show students the dynamic between “what we know” and society as a whole.
VI. Conclusion:
As “nerdy” as it sounds, I loved having the opportunity to take part in this
assignment. I have never taken a class that focused solely on how science influences and
is influenced by, society. Having the opportunity to come up with a class that focuses on
this was a great way to get more knowledge, for myself, about this topic. It was very

21. 21
interesting for me to look at how other professors are teaching this class and what topics
they cover. I didn’t realize how much information there is to “sociology of science” and it
was almost overwhelming to try and sift through all of the topics and articles. I tried to
pick my favorite topics in the subject that I thought people who would be my age would
find relevant and subjects that I had found misconceptions within.
Being a biology major, with a sociological mind has caused me to see the way
that science influences society and is influenced by it as well. Having the opportunity to
show this to people is important to me because of the way that science is perceived by lay
people. Science has an almost God-like presence in our industrialized world. There is not
a great emphasis surrounding the critiques of science, or critiquing ways in which it could
hurt the world around us. For this reason, I think that as sociologists, it’s important to
discuss this topic. As technology and science become more of a driving force in society
and start to be the main focus of our higher education, it should be something that more
people are aware of. I fear that if we do not pay attention to the critiques of science,
realistically, something like GATTACA could happen. We don’t know how science and
technology will influence our world in the future. So far we have seen it doing good
things, with computers, the internet, and medical advancements, but it has done many
other things that may not benefit society as much, like bombs, biological warfare, and
many other things. I think it’s important that these things get exposed. I loved reading the
article about how the “Gay Gene” being discovered differed between the US and the UK.
It showed that even among industrialized nations, there is a difference in the perception
of how scientific discoveries will impact the world.

22. 22
In conclusion, I have appreciated the opportunity to explore this topic in a
much deeper light. I could very easily see this being my master’s or doctoral
thesis/dissertation topic, so having a chance to find articles and learn about what is being
done in this topic, within our field, has been very insightful.