In his article “Genetics after Auschwitz” David Suzuki discusses the necessity of studying and evaluating the history of science. His main claim lies in the fact that throughout history scientists didn't always follow ethical standards. For instance, there were cases when geneticists believed in the theory of selective breeding and they carried out a number of researches in death camps. Suzuki believes that knowing the whole history of scientific work, including even the most unpleasant and terrible cases, will help scientists not to make the same mistakes which they did in the past. All in all, the author successfully explained to the audience the importance of teaching the history of science in order to strengthen ethical lines among scientists and not to cross them.
First of all, it is important to mention that in order to effectively support his claim about the necessity of studying the whole history of science, Suzuki used numerous evidences. The author uses an example of infamous scientist Josef Mengele, who worked with German scientists at Auschwitz. Unfortunately, but science students do not learn anything about such people as Mengele. No one teaches them that they performed their researches in death camps. As Suzuki claims, “we don't learn that genetics were the prime movers behind the Nazi Race Purification program and that the voices of opposition to Hitler from scientists and doctors were silent” (Suzuki, 86). However, it is extremely important for science students to know these past experiences, no matter how unpleasant they are. By providing such simple example when scientists didn't obey ethnical norms, Suzuki effectively proves that not knowing such examples, scientists may make the same mistakes again. It is mainly the history that provides them with such lessons. According to Suzuki, this selective memory of science’s history amounts to a coverup and a revisionism that only ensures that the same thing could happen again” (Suzuki, 88). The author understands why many scientists are reluctant to study their past. However, it is mainly the past that teaches people what may be the possible consequences of their actions. The truth is that there are many reasons that make people do certain things. Among them Suzuki mentions curiosity, ambition, fear, financial success and others. Therefore, unless “we dig out the bad as well as the good in science’ s history, we will ensure that scientists will continue to do terrible things for what seem to be the highest reasons – just as their predecessors did” (Suzuki 94).
It is also worth considering that in order to prove his point, Suzuki relies on the knowledgeable scientist Muller-Hill and his work that has the same title “Genetics after Auschwitz”. In it Muller also stresses the importance of knowing the scientific past in order to promote ethical standards and social responsibility. Muller-Hill also uses the example of Auschwitz claiming that some scientists were also selecting people for gas chambers. The scientist claims that “Auschwitz was not only a site of destruction and a laboratory of human biology; it was also planned as a place of chemical production” (qtd. in Suzuki, 91). It is clear that people should know their past history as such knowledge may prevent them from making the same mistakes again.
The credibility of Suzuli’s work also lies in the fact that he mentions some counter arguments to his theory. Thus, some scientists misinterpret Suzuki’s main claim believing that the author only states that scientists are prone to evil. Some of them perceive scientists’ past experiences as pseudo-science. They think that what has happened in Auschwitz shouldn't be considered as science at all. According to Gold, “the concept of racial purity is not a scientific concept and has no place in genetics. It is simply intellectual rubbish that was dragged in to justify actions undertaken for other reasons” (qtd. in Suzuki, 95). Nevertheless, no matter whether people call it pseudoscience or pseudo medicine, scientists did not always follow ethical standards. And the example of Auschwitz is lifetime evidence. This evidence allows Suzuki to arrive at conclusion that scientists should know their history. They should know it in order not to repeat the same mistakes in their future work. As the author states, “there must be constant reassessment of changing relationship between science and society, and the best guide that we have is history” (Suzuki, 96).
It is clear that Suzuki's major audience is scientific community. He mainly addresses to his colleagues and professors in science. He tries to explain them how important it is to teach science students their past. Thus, the knowledge of scientists’ past experiences may help students not to make the same mistakes in their future careers. Moreover, the knowledge of their past will make scientists more socially responsible and will strengthen ethical lines. It is also possible to say that the article will be useful for general audience as well. It is clear that it is mainly the ordinary people who are affected by the advancements in science. Therefore, they should also be aware of the scientific past.
Works cited
Suzuki, David. “Genetics after Auschwitz”.
