Free+Gift+–+Good+Science

Free Gift – Good Science As I was reading Reddy’s article two things stack on my mind: the “good science” and the “free gift”.

Good Science: What is good science? People, scientists talk about that but does it really exist? By this phrase “good science” we mean science conducted ethically? And if we mean that, how we define ethically conducted science? Is the one that it is in accordance with the scientific principles, or the one that it is in accordance with the outcome of the scientific research? Did it benefit most people? Did it produce goods? If we are considering good science the scientific research that is conducted in accordance to the scientific principles then it is not always certain that the outcome is ethically significant. If we are considering good science according to the outcomes, how we can count the benefits. Can we calculate happiness? How we are sure that the benefits have been distributed equally? How long we have to wait for the benefits. A day, a month a year? I don’t know if the term “good science” is a successful one. When we say good, we mean pure? Even if there is an ideal good science, will it be pure? Derrida would say that this is impossible and I will agree with him. Science isn’t pure it is contaminated by its commercialization. The money always come from a company and always copyrights and patent rights follow all scientific products and scientific knowledge.

Free Gift: Can we talk about free gifts? Derrida would have said no. The gifts have always a purpose. You give something because you gain something. You give your blood for research prepuces and you are doing it for the common good. This gift isn’t free. First of all, if everybody gains for the research you gain as well. Second of all, you gain the pleasure of fulfilling your obligation: you give your blood because it is an obligation, you fill good with yourself because you succeed to fulfill your obligation.