[The following opinion piece was published under the above title in the February 26, 1998 issue of the Mass Media, the weekly student newspaper at the Univ of Massachusetts/Boston.]

      Science is a uniquely powerful mode of learning about the physical world. As a group, scientists can say very important things to all people, and not only by publications and public pronouncements, but also by what they do.

      The publicized near-total consensus among climatologists and other physical scientists who think critically about the world's climate has had a crucial impact on public awareness that humanity is contributing to global warming, and that this is a dangerous threat of colossal and unprecedented magnitude. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is now generally accepted. How that is to be accomplished is a problem that, unfortunately, most scientists leave primarily to others.

      The world ignores science at its peril. Wrong ideas can be very dangerous. Consider the notion of "creationism", which is widely supported in the U.S. Other versions of creationism are held by many American Indian cultures. Vine Deloria Jr., a Lakota Indian, despite being a deservedly well-respected professor of history at the University of Colorado, put forward in the second edition of his book God is Red the idea that humanity consists of two groups, the natural peoples and the hybrids. The natural peoples live in harmony with nature, to which they belong. We hybrids (the majority) are the offspring resulting from extraterrestrial beings who invaded the Middle East, subjugated the original indigenous population, with whom they interbred, and subsequently extended control over much of the world. We hybrids also subjugate nature, from which we stand apart. Naturals and hybrids--two "races"--neither more nor less fanciful than other myths, and potentially just as dangerous.

      The notion of race, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu argued in his book Race, Man's Most Dangerous Myth, is a social creation, not a fact of biology. As we now know from fundamental studies in population genetics, all people belong to the single, unique, human race. Yes, there are variations among gene pools, but they are of fleeting insignificance compared to the commonalities. This is the overriding simple scientific fact.

      Science at best aims for fundamental understanding of phenomena, always trying to penetrate more deeply, to separate what is basic from what can be derived, to dig for deeper understanding. I believe this is an essential quality of good science. But "good science" alone is not enough, because basic understanding leads to the possibility of enormous power, power which can be used well, but also badly. I am convinced that biology is now potentially at least as dangerous to human well-being as physics was during the period of the Manhattan Project, because of the depth of understanding--for physics, of nuclei--for biology, of the "nuclei of life." Some Manhattan Project physicists hesitated to test the first atomic bomb, fearful of the possible consequences for humanity. Fermi reportedly chided them, "Damn it! It's good physics." The bomb worked. And the fatal threat it unleashed still hangs precariously over humanity and the entire biosphere.

      Because science is inseparable from the all-embracing social matrix, it is never enough to ask simply, "Is it good science?" Ought something be done because it will advance human knowledge? Clearly not, if the new knowledge will, or is likely to, lead to the destruction of humanity. I believe the danger of destroying the biosphere is imminent. If scientists as a group fail to think critically about the destructive social forces responsible, and fail to act, it will be at the peril of all of us, our children and whatever later generations may survive.

      There are a few small groups of scientists and non-scientists working to educate the public about some of the dangers: the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Institute for Food and Development Policy, the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, and Greenpeace, to mention several. But the bulk of professional scientists still remain outside such efforts.

      Maybe it's a good time for a large-scale consortium of scientists and science students to form for educational outreach to the general population. If you'd like to be in touch about this, let me know. With use of e-mail we can easily extend such organizational efforts beyond our own campus.