Research & Development World

  • R&D World Home
  • Topics
    • Aerospace
    • Automotive
    • Biotech
    • Careers
    • Chemistry
    • Environment
    • Energy
    • Life Science
    • Material Science
    • R&D Management
    • Physics
  • Technology
    • 3D Printing
    • A.I./Robotics
    • Software
    • Battery Technology
    • Controlled Environments
      • Cleanrooms
      • Graphene
      • Lasers
      • Regulations/Standards
      • Sensors
    • Imaging
    • Nanotechnology
    • Scientific Computing
      • Big Data
      • HPC/Supercomputing
      • Informatics
      • Security
    • Semiconductors
  • R&D Market Pulse
  • R&D 100
    • Call for Nominations: The 2025 R&D 100 Awards
    • R&D 100 Awards Event
    • R&D 100 Submissions
    • Winner Archive
    • Explore the 2024 R&D 100 award winners and finalists
  • Resources
    • Research Reports
    • Digital Issues
    • R&D Index
    • Subscribe
    • Video
    • Webinars
  • Global Funding Forecast
  • Top Labs
  • Advertise
  • SUBSCRIBE

Who Speaks for Science?

By R&D Editors | January 31, 2007

Who Speaks for Science?

Rahul Kanakia, Stanford News Service What role can scientists play in public decisions about the development and deployment of weapons systems? As the United States continues to commit its troops and

Rebecca Slayton, lecturer in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society. Image courtesy of L.A. Cicero

technology around the world, this question is worrisome to the public and to concerned scientists alike. According to Rebecca Slayton, a lecturer in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society, there’s some hope: Science gives experts an important, albeit limited, space for influencing public decisions. Slayton made her case February 19 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, where she showed how a relatively new science, computing, has &#151 and has not &#151 influenced public debate about missile defense in the United States. Missile defenses rely critically upon complex computers, and their software cannot be considered reliable until it is tested under realistic operational conditions. This fact was tragically demonstrated in the 2003 Iraq war when bugs in the Patriot missile defense system resulted in error, causing two friendly fire incidents. And since it is impossible to stage a trial nuclear war, missile defense systems can never be adequately tested and rendered free of bugs. Slayton has studied the history of computing and debate about missile defense from the late 1940s through today. In her talk she compared two missile defense debates, one over proposals to deploy anti-ballistic missile defenses in the late 1960s and the other over President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, or the “Star Wars” research and development program, in the 1980s. In both debates, computer professionals were among the many scientists who spoke out against the proposals to defend the United States from a Soviet nuclear attack, calling them technologically infeasible. In the 1960s, their arguments were easily dismissed as pessimism, but by the 1980s computer experts had gained more social and intellectual status as scientists. Using mathematical models to analyze complex systems they hadn’t actually worked on, their public remarks about weapons were more authoritative. And as they gained status in the Defense Department, they were included on more of its expert panels. When David Lorge Parnas, a software engineer, resigned from one of these in 1985, saying that reliable software couldn’t be written for a “Star Wars” system, the issue finally hit the front page of the New York Times. On the surface, the arguments of computer scientists may have seemed obvious. Even simple computer systems malfunction and crash. “How could you expect a computer system more complex than anything we use these days to work correctly the very first time it’s used?” Slayton asks. “And yet, people argued about it. What kind of knowledge do you need to bring to the table to close this argument down?” Slayton’s talk was part of a panel titled “Who Speaks for Science? Scientific Authority in the 21st Century.” David Kellogg, assistant professor of English at Northeastern University, spoke about the use of scientific authority in the intelligent design creationism movement. W. Wayt Gibbs, former senior writer for Scientific American who works for Seattle-based Intellectual Ventures, gave a journalist’s perspective on scientific authority. And Linda Billings of the SETI Institute presented an overview of the media coverage surrounding Harvard psychiatry Professor John E. Mack’s alien abduction research.

Related Articles Read More >

Satellite data sheds light on wetland health in cloud-covered regions
Alice & Bob outlines roadmap to 100 logical qubits by 2030
Idemitsu expands partnership with Enthought to accelerate battery material innovation
top 25 AI patent winners of 2024
From NVIDIA to SAP: How 25 global AI patent leaders fared in 2024
rd newsletter
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND STAY CONNECTED
Get the latest info on technologies, trends, and strategies in Research & Development.
RD 25 Power Index

R&D World Digital Issues

Fall 2024 issue

Browse the most current issue of R&D World and back issues in an easy to use high quality format. Clip, share and download with the leading R&D magazine today.

Research & Development World
  • Subscribe to R&D World Magazine
  • Enews Sign Up
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Drug Discovery & Development
  • Pharmaceutical Processing
  • Global Funding Forecast

Copyright © 2025 WTWH Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media
Privacy Policy | Advertising | About Us

Search R&D World

  • R&D World Home
  • Topics
    • Aerospace
    • Automotive
    • Biotech
    • Careers
    • Chemistry
    • Environment
    • Energy
    • Life Science
    • Material Science
    • R&D Management
    • Physics
  • Technology
    • 3D Printing
    • A.I./Robotics
    • Software
    • Battery Technology
    • Controlled Environments
      • Cleanrooms
      • Graphene
      • Lasers
      • Regulations/Standards
      • Sensors
    • Imaging
    • Nanotechnology
    • Scientific Computing
      • Big Data
      • HPC/Supercomputing
      • Informatics
      • Security
    • Semiconductors
  • R&D Market Pulse
  • R&D 100
    • Call for Nominations: The 2025 R&D 100 Awards
    • R&D 100 Awards Event
    • R&D 100 Submissions
    • Winner Archive
    • Explore the 2024 R&D 100 award winners and finalists
  • Resources
    • Research Reports
    • Digital Issues
    • R&D Index
    • Subscribe
    • Video
    • Webinars
  • Global Funding Forecast
  • Top Labs
  • Advertise
  • SUBSCRIBE