...The Necessity of Science Fiction, the Limits of Science Fact...

Collectively, from the late 60s through the 80s and now the millennium, the progression of science promise, science fact and now we are in the era of its ultimate fruition through comprehensive scientific fulfillment.  We have invisibility cloaks, created life from artificial matter, nanobots, hyper-computing, and more each day.  We live in the post-fact era and the limits of science border on superficial constraint.

However, we must never allow the promises of science fiction blur our ability to wield and control science fact.

Science fiction's value has been redeemed from what I heard up through the late 70s - that it is child's play, it has little to no value to hard science.  But, no one can deny the spark of exploration and imagination that has led us to the cusp of fulfillment that we see today.  Science fiction authors were the first explorers - expanding thoughts and working through proofs of wild and extraordinary things - all before the first gantry was built, before the first footfalls on the Moon.  It was they that captured young scientists minds and didn't tell them want not to do, but what could be possible.

There should never be limits to exploration through science fiction.

And, remember that, with many science fiction stories, we must remember the cautionary tales as well.  They are cautionary because they have been thought through.  They are frightening when we do not respect the limits of power, when we continue off frame from the natural laws that are part of the universe, and part of our species.  Can we overcome the natural laws, surely, but, at the same time we must understand them before we proceed.

Science fact can explore, but only if we are responsible, and, I'll dare say it as a part of our culture, moral, about the choices we make.  Here are the top five precepts that we must hold dear to our minds and scientific endeavors:

1: "Habit of Truth" - put down Brownowski or Feynman, the precept is that communication and the endeavor must be widely open and honest.  If there is falsity or making the data follow the purpose toward a personal or political end, than it is not science at all.

1EX: read about germ theory as it pertained to Louis Pasteur or the Hospitallers.  The concept of washing ones hands and/or limiting contamination from one wing to the next seems like a no-brainer today, but it is (sadly) only a modern development (and not everyone is onboarded).  I say habit of truth applies here only in that those that found the studies enlightening were being held back by those that didn't believe it, instead of openly sharing the information and allowing the staff to make up their own minds.

2: "Comprehensive Terminus" - quite simply, never proceed with an experiment where you cannot limit or terminate the progression of a problem.

2EX: there are even small concepts that could literally destroy the world if left unchecked.  Consider germ warfare and its effects if truly left unchecked in the hands of an angry few.  Consider experimentation that can magnify by exponential growth - concepts like machines that can eliminate oxygen or water, nanobots that are set to reproduce and turn all matter it touches into its derivatives.  They sound far fetched, but, imagine an experiment in the hands of a moron.  Even the particle accelerator at CERN has safety measures and sound science in the event of a problem.

3: "Do No Harm" - doctors at one time roundly understood the Hippocratic Oath to mean 'no harm' - it has since been modified to permit harm in outlined circumstances.  That's not a political thought, it is a truth.  My argument here is to return to such a state, eventually, only because of the gross benefit 'no harm' provides.  There are arguments because of over-population, to prevent other suffering, etc. which need to be definitively explored.  But the 'no harm', similar to Asimov's Robot Maxims, are there as a safeguard.

3EX: no need to go further than the genocidal dictators of history and see the 'for the better good' outweighing 'do no harm' - the difference is in millions upon millions of bodies.  From experimentation of live healthy subjects, to mass graves, and more - 'for the better good' does not go far enough'.  I would argue that it is not the ultimate net benefit of society to allow for death, but seek alternatives.

4: "Celebrate Science, Appreciate Viewpoints" - there's been a recent revival of scientific arguments directly against religion.  This is weak sauce, only because the two shouldn't be equated, first and foremost, as one is based in discernible endeavor, while religion is based on perception and feelings.  Arguing directly just makes both sides look foolish, honestly, I don't get the cheering/jeering on in these types of debates.  Religion has been a part of human experience alongside science, with many scientists of the past actually never denying the exist of God.  We can work together and stop the fussing and fighting.

Besides, the basis here is that the scientist should envision and the religious can point out where this could be a potential problem when it runs in opposition of a faith.  Not because it must be done, I only offer it is a good measure.

It is ironic that Star Trek envisions a grand Prime Directive, but we break it with our own species on a constant basis.

4EX: read the recent debates regarding stem cell theories.  I point out they were theories, and, come to find out, there's a lot of other ways to harvest them then in by purposefully killing unborn babies where there are fruitful alternatives (see 3).  This leads into my last point...

5: "Rigorous Debate" - if science becomes a hive mind mentality, then we are truly lost.  The blessing of the scientist versus the zealot, in some ways, if constructive, is that it pushes us to find alternate ways.  That cannot be supplanted but by not having scientists that are kind, but by those that are passionate.  And, the one that yells the loudest shouldn't win because they are loud - I see that all the time and its not the best strike toward the better solution.

5EX: post-apocalyptic movies pretty much delve into this at length.  We ultimately destroy ourselves if we don't have varying viewpoints.  Active debate leads to the catalytic converter, leads to harvest of stem cells from after-birth, leads to the organic movement.  The spectrum toward the best solution is easy: meets objective, is cost-effective, if mutual befitting, is moral, just and measurably improves the state of man, animal and world.

I think 5 is actually the most crucial - if we stop saying 'why are we doing that in that way', we have no where else to go and scientific endeavor is toast.