what do you think was the worst scientific discoverey ?i think it was the theory of realitivity as it helped create the

Question: what do you think was the worst scientific discoverey ?i think it was the theory of realitivity as it helped create the atomic bomb
- Keywords:
  atomic bomb,
  discoverey,
  invention,
  theory of relativity
Asked by zmzmzm to Allan, Angela, Diva, Harriet, Nathan on 28 Jun 2012. This question was also asked by hollisterchicken.
- Allan Pang answered on 28 Jun 2012:
  
  I don’t think that there’s such a thing as the worst scientific discovery, but there are people who would use science in a worst imaginable application.
  
  Science is a neutral tool. Any simple discovery can easily be used for good and evil.
  
  An example: The GPS (Global Positioning System) is a great tool. It can help a driver to navigate his way to an unknown place. But some evil people can also use GPS to track and stalk others.
  
  In fact this is also applicable in my research. I plan to use my bacterial microcompartment for medicine (drug delivery) and production of high energy. But in both ways it can be used for “evil purposes”, you can put in a poison instead of drug, or use the high energy to create atomic bomb, instead for producing electricity.
- Harriet Groom answered on 28 Jun 2012:
  
  I agree with Allan, I don’t think any scientific discovery is bad. Science is a tool and the more tools we have the better equipped we are for what like and the universe throws at us.
  
  A recent example going on in my field at the moment is someone has discovered some mutations that make flu pandemic. They wanted to publish their results to help other scientists develop better drugs for this type of flu but the magasines were worried that terrorists would use the information to create dangerous strains of flu. I think if we worried about the bad applications of science then we would lose too much of the good science that people do!
- Nathan Langford answered on 28 Jun 2012:
  
  Yep, I agree. New scientific discoveries are new knowledge and I don’t really think it’s possible for new knowledge to be a bad thing intrinsically. It’s what people do with it that makes it bad or good.
  
  For example, did you know that almost all of the scientists who worked on the atom bomb project later became avid campaigners against nuclear weapons?
  
  Also, although the special theory of relativity led to the invention of the atomic bomb, it has many more good applications. For example, did you know that GPS wouldn’t even be able to work properly without relativity?
  
  There’s a great story about general relativity – I don’t know if it’s true, or if it’s just an urban legend. But when NASA first sent up positioning satellites, no one had yet been able to prove whether general relativity was true or not. But whether it was true would completely change the results of the positioning experiments, because the clocks would run at a different speed in the satellite and this would have a significant impact on the positioning estimates. So apparently NASA sent up the satellites with a switch to swap between two modes “general relativity on” and “general relativity off” – with the whole programme designed to operate in two different ways. When they sent it up, they had it switched to off and pretty soon they realised that all the results were wrong. So they then switched in on and all of a sudden it started working perfectly. How’s that for a cool way to prove a theory!
- Diva Amon answered on 5 Jul 2012:
  
  Hey zmzmzm and hollister chicken,
  
  I’m going to have to agree with all of the other scientists and say that no scientific discovery is strictly bad. Science is about the progression of knowledge but occasionally bad people come along that can use science in evil ways and this harms science on a whole. I was going to use the example that Harriet used about the flu – a great and recent example of science being used for bad.
  
  If I HAD to choose though, maybe chloroflourocarbons (CFCs). These are chemical compounds containing carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and flourine, which were used in the making of refrigerators and aerosols (like cans of deodorant etc). It is important to point out that they weren’t invented with bad intentions – it was only after a while that scientists realised the negative effects they were having. It turned out that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer – that is why there are two large holes in it now! This is a bad thing because it means more UV rays can reach earth, increasing the chances of people getting skin cancer. CFCs were also greenhouse gases, meaning that they were helping to contribute to global warming. Thankfully, once this was all realised, CFCs have been banned. Unfortunately though however, the damage to the ozone layer is actually taking a long time to be fixed. If only us scientists had known!