Despite the slow activity over the past several months, Lintbox is back on track, and to prove it, we introduce the next panel discussion!

As the LHC became active over the fall, those opposing its activation grew louder and received considerable attention on various news outlets.  On top of this, public opinion polls found that the majority of Americans felt that the risks (though debunked) of activating the LHC far outweighed its potential benefits.  The Large Hadron Collider’s opponents argue that the possible dangers resultant of the massive particle collider’s activity, ranging from the creation of micro black holes to the catastrophic invention of the mythical “strange matter” may damage or even destroy the planet.  These arguments have been resoundingly shot down by the entire scientific community as both scientifically inaccurate and too unlikely to be even considered possible.  However, as with any debate, there remains some ground to explore.

While the LHC may not spell doom for planet Earth, the notion that we should spend more time considering the risks of our pursuit of science may in fact be valid, were this not already the case.  The question, then, is as follows:  Are there any existing risks to the pursuit of science?  If so, what are they?  Should limits be imposed on what we can and cannot explore?  Finally, if there are substantial dangers associated with the pursuit of science, do the benefits outweigh the risks?

Paul, Mitchell and Kyle have their answers.

Next Page: Kyle’s Response

Pages: 1 2 3 4