As Long as there is a Profit to be Made, Discoveries will be Exploited

622 WordsFeb 2, 20183 Pages
The question posed for this microtheme asks the difference between science and technology. This has been a question I’ve pondered in the past. My personal viewpoint is that as long as there is a profit to be made, discoveries will be exploited. Science relies on technology to pursue science, meaning more technology developed to support further pursuit. The line is very blurred for me. Are scientists merely messengers making discoveries, inadvertently helping others advance their position by exploitation? Most Americans consider Thomas Edison a great inventor and scientist, yet James Burke shows disdain for the accomplishments attributed to Edison, apparently because of the method and money made in the process. Does profit separate science and technology? Benjamin Franklin never took out a patent, believing, in the 18th century, inventions were something mankind should be as happy to share as they are to use from one another. He created technology out of science and made no profit. Does that make him a pure scientist? Andy Warhol was a similar mindset as Edison using apprentices and others to create his ideas, such as his acclaimed silk-screened image of “Gold Marilyn Monroe”. Does that mean he was a technician, not an artist? Can one be both? He surely made a profit. Galileo used collaboration to advance science in the 17th century, with written correspondence and discussions about various topics that were yet to be confirmed, or revealed, such as the vacuum

More about As Long as there is a Profit to be Made, Discoveries will be Exploited

Open Document