Using Uncertaintly about Science to Enact Social Change

I learned about Rachel Carson for the first time when studying for the AP US History exam in 11th grade. She didn't come up in class, but she was an important enough figure to warrant being part of the study guide for the AP. Rachel Carson published the book "Silent Spring" in 1962, which was famous for "progressively amplif[ying] what was unclear about the human impacts of DDT and other synthetic compounds on humans and wildlife." This article, which reminds us that Carson's book was published 50 years ago, also highlights the idea that she used science to make a social change in a different way than is conventional today. In the quote I pulled from the article, it specifically notes that she did not write about the dangers of using pesticides, and she did not cite case studies by testing hypotheses. Instead, her case studies exposed the world to the ambiguity about the issue. She made the issue that stemmed from her research into a debate. She created public discourse about scientific chemicals. And perhaps most importantly, she consequently became one of the "founders" of the environmental movement.

In a few classes over the past few weeks, we have brought up the question of what the role of scientists should be. Are they doing their jobs to gain knowledge? Should they be trying to make society better? Safer? Scientists nowadays seem not to be using Carson's method of bringing ambiguity to the forefront in order to enact social change. Maybe we live in a world where people are so quick to find solutions that they overlook asking the right questions. I'd be curious to see more people adopt Carson's methodology.