Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The phenomenon of dangerous knowledge might seem like a self-contradictory one since knowledge is usually considered to be the source of global well-being and the promotion of progress. However, when representing a collection of facts on a singular issue and being applied as a means to unethical ends, without due regard for long-term outcomes, knowledge may become dangerous. To avoid the transformation of positive knowledge into a dangerous one, the integration of ethical principles into the management of information and the process of decision-making, alongside the focus on a multidisciplinary approach, must be used.
This essay will consider some of the examples of knowledge morphing into its dangerous variety in the context of geology. Specifically, situations in which knowledge was misused or the absence of knowledge was demonstrated on a particular issue are considered to prove the importance of a multifaceted approach toward decision-making in regard to emergent knowledge. Dangerous knowledge as an issue needs to be addressed as a complex concern involving the absence of the relevant knowledge and the failure to conduct an evidence-based assessment of the problem. Therefore, further efforts must be made to promote active education both for experts and general audiences, with the emphasis on the careful evaluation of multiple factors and the inclusion of evidence in the discussion of possible avenues to take when making a decision.
Definition
The phenomenon of dangerous scientific knowledge might seem weird at first glance since knowledge is traditionally regarded as the source of vital power for people globally. Indeed, when utilized properly, namely, with a due understanding of the outcomes and with the benefit of all those involved in mind, knowledge becomes a massively powerful tool in advancing progress and promoting global and local well-being. However, when deployed from a narrow perspective and based on an insufficient analysis of an insignificant range of factors, knowledge can become dangerous, meaning that it can lead to unexpected and often undesirable outcomes. By incorporating a decision-making framework that allows placing specific knowledge in multiple contexts and, therefore, analyzing it with multiple factors in mind, one will be able to introduce better control over decision-making and, thus, improve the outcomes of applying the knowledge in question to specific contexts.
In order to determine the strategies for managing the problem of dangerous scientific knowledge, one needs to define the subject matter first. Sinatra (2021) suggests that dangerous scientific knowledge is, in fact, a misnomer since it is used to denote dangerous misapplication of science. Therefore, Sinatra (2021) paces the emphasis on the act of failing to choose an appropriate course of action in regard to the recently obtained scientific data. However, the proposed definition is not the only one; Kirby (2018) also suggests defining dangerous scientific knowledge as an unfortunate misunderstanding of specific scientific facts, primarily perpetuated by the lack of awareness and the presence of myths on the issue at hand among general audiences (Kourany & Carrier, 2020). Since both definitions describe the situations in which the mismanagement of scientific facts represents a tangible threat, both will be incorporated into the analysis in this essay.
When considering the example of dangerous scientific knowledge and its mismanagement, one might consider the instances related to the field of geology as some of the most monumental ones in terms of their effect on global well-being. For instance, the mismanagement of the Middle Yangtze River drilling project can be seen as one of the most notorious instances of dangerous scientific knowledge issues. Namely, the situation illustrates a case of non-knowledge, particularly the failure to integrate proper tools for oil drilling. Being performed locally as a result of the decision to minimize costs for oil production, the drilling process has resulted in a plethora of geological problems, landslides being the most obvious ones (Zscheischler et al., 2018). Thus, the damage sustained by the people affected by the disaster, as well as the economic sustainability thereof, has been insurmountable.
In hindsight, it would have been reasonable to use the available data to model the trajectory of Lothars path, as well as the approximation of the damage that it was going to produce. However, even though a model for Lothar was developed, the unavailability of the essential data that could have helped predict its further development, its intensity, and the trajectory in which it was going o move, led to a dramatic failure in safeguarding the lives and well-being of millions of people (Zscheischler et al., 2018). Remarkably, even the damage inventory made after Lothar wrought havoc on Europe represented a major miscalculation due to the lack of knowledge concerning Lothars behavior and key patterns based on the observed and collected geological evidence. Specifically, the hurricane has affected not only urban areas but also the forest ecosystem, depriving multiple species of their natural habitat (Zscheischler et al., 2018). Namely, studies mention alterations in the habitat use for several species, including roe deer, as a result of Lothars impact (Zscheischler et al., 2018).
Remarkably, the studies that followed the devastating effects of Lothar have only proven the importance of knowledge being actively disseminated among experts and the detrimental impact of non-knowledge affecting the choices made by authorities. Specifically, the study by Widmer et al. (2004) explains that the situation with Lothar could have been managed by engaging in more active and careful evidence-based observations that would have helped to predict the emergence and behavior of Lothar (Sikder et al., 2017). However, the presence of non-knowledge as an example of a dangerous scientific knowledge issue has affected the course of decision-making, forcing people involved to make a string of poorly thought-out decisions.
Another notable example of dangerous scientific knowledge representing a major disadvantage includes a case of non-knowledge being the main reason for the issue to have occurred. Specifically, due to the failure to assess critical geological data and identify patterns in the development of specific weather conditions, a range of communities have faced massively devastating effects of the hurricane Lothar (Zscheischler et al., 2018). The case under analysis represents an instance of an abysmal failure to recognize the fact that the decision-making process was based on the absence of awareness concerning the trajectory of the hurricane and the extent of its danger (Zscheischler et al., 2018). As a result, Lothar produced tremendous damage across entire Europe, causing multiple deaths and costing millions of people their well-being and home.
Advantages and Disadvantages
As a notion, scientific knowledge represents a range of advantages when interpreted correctly. The concept of dangerous scientific knowledge, in turn, could be seen as the attempt at making conclusions and inferring critical strategies for further decision-making based on the insufficient evidence provided (Kourany & Carrier, 2020). Tin the situations that do not require delving into the intricacies of specific processes related to the issue at hand, the application of dangerous scientific knowledge could be seen as possible. Moreover, when any further inaction entails death or serious harm to citizens, scientific knowledge must be integrated into decision-making, even if the analysis leaves much to be desired (Kourany & Carrier, 2020). However, it should be noted that the described situations suggest the presence of dire conditions that demand an immediate response. In turn, any other context where integrating evidence-based research and promoting a multifaceted approach toward the assessment of the issue must be seen as the only possible course of action.
Indeed, as the examples above have demonstrated, the choice of inaction may be just as harmful and detrimental to the management of a specific project and meeting the key stakeholders needs as the misuse of knowledge. Moreover, the issue is particularly important for fields such as geology, where a single misstep may launch a chain of poorly thought-out decisions and, ultimately, cause a major disaster affecting the environment and the global ecosystem. Thus, effective communication, collaboration, and a clear disaster management plan must be prioritized when handling issues related to dangerous scientific knowledge.
However, when becoming dangerous, scientific knowledge also causes a range of problems, implying that it has a number of disadvantages to consider. The specified concerns raise the question of whether dangerous scientific knowledge should be integrated into the decision-making framework at all. The choice of incorporating dangerous scientific knowledge into the process of making a certain choice or searching for a solution turns particularly challenging when the available data sources are especially scanty.
While it is desirable to incorporate all available data into decision-making, the use of dangerous scientific data may represent far too big jeopardy due to the unavailability of the opportunity to assess or even determine the outcomes. The failure to recognize the scale and scope of possible negative outcomes suggests that the data that could be misinterpreted should not be included in the analysis from the start. The situation with the misuse of Coltan in the Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the most graphic and accurate examples of the possible repercussions of integrating dangerous scientific knowledge into the analysis without the proper grasp of the consequences. Specifically, in the situation under analysis, the misuse of Coltan and the dismissal of the possible effects of raw materials extraction on the environment should be referred to as one of the examples of the drastic adverse effects of dangerous scientific knowledge mismanagement.
Indeed, in the case under analysis, the Congolese conflict over the rights to extract Coltan as one of the vital materials for producing cellphones represents the misuse of dangerous scientific knowledge. Instead of creating at least a semblance of cooperation in an attempt to boost the states economies and sell Coltan to overseas buyers, the residents of Congo have been in a row over the rights to excavation and the sharing of resources (Wakenge et al., 2018). Moreover, the issue has been exacerbated by the local political conflicts (Wakenge et al., 2018). More importantly, the confrontation concerning the mining of Coltan has affected the political division between the states to an even greater extent, causing governments and the citizens of the corresponding African states to engage in an ongoing confrontation (Kourany & Carrier, 2020). Thus, the Congo case of Coltan excavation represents an instance of scientific knowledge becoming dangerous due to the misuse of the available resources, particularly its use for fueling the political disagreements between the African states even further.
Therefore, the application of dangerous scientific knowledge without the proper grasp of its possible effects has an obviously adverse effect on the further implementation of essential changes in the target setting. From a geological perspective, the integration of dangerous scientific knowledge can be considered an especially important concern since even a slight misstep may cause a catastrophe of a massive scale, as the cases of Coltan extraction in Congo and the problem of the Lothar hurricane in Europe have shown. By creating an elaborate model for disaster management based on effective interdisciplinary collaboration, with the emphasis on the role that geologists play in data management, one will be able to avert the threat of dangerous scientific knowledge.
References
Kirby, D. A. (2018). Harnessing the persuasive power of narrative: science, storytelling, and movie censorship, 19301968. Science in Context, 31(1), 85-106.
Kourany, J., & Carrier, M. (eds.). (2020). Science and the production of ignorance. In When the quest for knowledge is thwarted (pp. 123-143). MIT Press.
Sikder, M. F., Halder, S., Hasan, T., Uddin, M. J., & Baowaly, M. K. (2017). Smart disaster notification system. In 2017 4th International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering (ICAEE) (pp. 658-663). IEEE.
Sinatra, G. M. (2021). Motivational and emotional impacts on public (mis) understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 1-10.
Wakenge, C. I., Dijkzeul, D., & Vlassenroot, K. (2018). Regulating the old game of smuggling? Coltan mining, trade and reforms in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 56(3), 497-522.
Widmer, O., Sa1d, S., Miroir, J., Duncan, P., Gaillard, J. M., & Klein, F. (2004). The effects of hurricane Lothar on habitat use of roe deer. Forest Ecology and Management, 195(1-2), 237-242.
Zscheischler, J., Martius, O., Westra, S., Bevacqua, E., Raymond, C., Horton, R. M., & Vignotto, E. (2020). A typology of compound weather and climate events. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(7), 333-347.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.