Round 1: IsaacKoi v azchuck Doctor Evil

The topic for this debate is "Science has done more harm than good in human history and needs to be strictly regulated".

IsaacKoi will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
azchuck will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post. Please notice that the character counter counts backwards.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.

Each round that a member participates in is worth 1 ranking point in the Debate Forum Challenge Ladder. Winning the final round is worth an additional 1 point.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner. Each debate will have one judge. The decision of the judge is worth 5 stars.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

IsaacKoi has missed his opening statement. Azchuck may make his opening statement.

azchuck has missed his reply. IsaacKoi may now post.

Proposition: "Science has done more harm than good in human history and needs to be strictly regulated".

Ladies and Gentlemen, with apologies to my opponent for the delayed start, I would like to outline the arguments I will be developing during this debate.

This debate is not about whether all scientific research should be outlawed. Of course not. But it does need to be strictly regulated. Thus far, science and technology have done more harm than good and pose great dangers to society.

The potential of scientific development needs to be harnessed for the good of society, not simply to add to the swelling coffers of multi-national companies that can afford huge research and development programs.

Possibly the most obvious danger comes from the Weapons of Mass Destructions (“WMDs”) which science has helped produce. There may not have been any WMDs in Iraq, but there are more than enough nuclear bombs and biological weapons in other countries to risk adding humanity to the list of extinct species (a list that grows longer every day due to “scientific progress”).

Numerous significant environmental disasters have arisen from scientific and technological developments. Nuclear waste, CFCs, global warming, acid rain, chemical pollution and smog would just be the first few items on a very long list. We have been paying too high a price for labour saving devices which supposedly make our lives easier (yet somehow we seem to have less free time and work harder than previous generations).

My opponent may try to gain your support by pointing to the material benefits which science has brought and the greater life expectancies. However, I will be asking you to think about the deeper impact on humanity of scientific “progress” and the long-term risks which mankind now faces from the use of science and technology.

I will be asking you to think about how “science” really works, who benefits and who is harmed. Most scientific research is currently funded by, and for the benefit of, various industries and companies. Even a lot of research in universities is now done in partnership with industries and has the clear goal of making a profit. And with the profit motive comes a willingness to take risks (or a blindness to those risks) – including risks to the environment and human health.

A “scientific” approach is supposed to be objective and neutral. However, this supposed objectivity is sometimes used as an excuse by scientists to wash their hands of the consequences of their research, whether it is a better way for us to kill one another or to reduce the diversity of life on this planet.

The prevalence of the “scientific” mindset has also left much of the Western world without any real moral compass. Religions have been undermined, but science offers no alternative guide to right and wrong. It does not offer any meaning or purpose to our lives, other than as consumers.

The pace of scientific development threatens to outpace regulation. Genetically engineering food is being farmed despite widespread public concern. Other areas of research, such as nanotechnology, have the potential to wipe out all life on the planet.

While strict regulation of science may somewhat slow the pace of scientific “progress”, this would be a small price to pay for reducing the risks posed.

Science has done more harm than good in human history and therefore needs to be strictly regulated.

azchuck has missed two posts. He has forfeited this debate. IsaacKoi will advance to round 2.