Do the treats that scientific advances bring with them outweigh all the benefits that the advances have to offer? Asked this question forty years ago many people would not have hesitated to answer "No." But now with RoundUp polluting out land and our bodies, surgical mesh causing deaths, Chesapeake Bay's oyster beds and oyster industry having been killed off runoff down the James River from insecticide plants up stream, DDT having down its number on us and more news every day of better living through science gone bad, that "No" has changed to a "Yes." "No" the unknown ramifications of your stupendous new pill, surgical procedure, therapy, tanning bed, pudding mix, industrial process, youth restoring make-up do not necessarily outweigh any benefits it might have to offer. And if you want me to buy it you had better devise a way of troubleshooting your inventions much more thoroughly from now on than you have in the past. I would rather not have the miraculous ability to keep my natural hair color to death without dyes and would rather not have my hormones replaced or my son launched into outer space in a rocket, unless I am convinced due dilligence has been done.
There are bad sides to science, depending upon who uses the technology. The Soviet Union got a hold of our nuclear secrets and built their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. Terrorists in the Middle East use cell phones to detonate IEDs on a regular basis. Advances in science shouldn't be feared--the scientific knowledge gained outweighs any threats. Science itself isn't evil--the people who abuse it are the ones held responsible for despicable acts.