Science, itself, is pretty much neutral. There is no dark side or light side at the base of scientific inquiry. Scientists do what they do. Robert Oppenheimer appeared to regret his role in the development of the atomic bomb---after he saw what it would do. Richard P. Feynman, a great physicist in his own right and a contributor to the ill-fated Manhattan Project, went on to win a Nobel prize in or around 1965. These individuals and so many others, did their science because it was THERE to be done, not because it was, would, or might be dark, light or indifferent. Let's not over-think this, friends. Even Heisenberg allowed an uncertainty principle. So, there we are.

I was amused by the image above---Gene Wilder from Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, isn't it? Well, that much aside, I must agree, mostly, with our friend Neuman. What HGN leaves out (intentionally or not) is the ongoing friction and fractionalization among scientists. These otherwise honorable men and women continually pick and snipe at one another's work. There are so many feuds, past and present, that we sometimes wonder how anything gets done in the field of science (much as with politics, but it is all interrelated of course.) And so, this dark side of science appears to be status quo---even necessary. Because after all is said, things DO get done. And just so.
the Doctor.

Science is a branch of knowledge, and knowledge is a source of power. All forms of power can be used for good or evil.
The problem in large part seems to boil down to the question, should knowledge (especially of the scientific variety) be considered a private or public asset? In other words, should all scientific discoveries be available to everyone? Or, should individuals and groups be allowed to keep them private and profit from them? I think there would be much less concern with the dark side of science if scientific knowledge and discoveries were fully out in the open.

Well. Now that we have contemplated the "dark side of science", shall we discuss the "dark side of religion". Or perhaps, the "dark side of philosophy?" Really. There will always be uncertainty. Someone said that. Keep on saying what you say, Neuman,---the boxcars of this world are full of effluent of one sort or another. Poison is harmless when it is not ingested...figuratively speaking, of course...

This was a frustratingly muddled show. Rabinow kept conflating science and technology (molecular biology is *all* technology? Really? Ever heard of Hox genes, or rna interference, or the c-value paradox, or any other of a number of theoretical insights that come from molecular work?) He then simultaneously criticized molecular bio for being in the pocket of big pharma's patent network (because the results are worth all that funding) yet also (somehow) ineffective in discovering much that was medically useful. You gotta work pretty hard to maintain that kind of cognitive dissonance. He takes issue with biotech patents because we somehow "lose" the fruits of the research? Um, no, everyone gains the knowledge (either through the journal publication or the patent application), the funder just gets a limited-time monopoly on making money from the patentable discovery. The sloppy reasoning just goes on and on...
Of course what gets funded is not totally neutral, and more funding for basic science would be a great solution to the difficulty of promoting "interesting" rather than "profitable" research. But to say that discovering the way the cosmos, chemistry, or our particular biology works (in other words, to figure out what is already going on) is somehow dark or evil? Please.
Go criticize the technologists if you like - they are *not* scientists, but engineers. Seriously, "The Dark side of Technology" would have been a fairer title to the show.

The Roman Stoic essayist, Seneca, noted, "It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing." His observation would serve fittingly as a motto for many modern educational systems but surely not for science or philosophy. Who would expect science to remain pure and useless? Thus, the conduct of science, like that of any activity must be judged by its consequences.

I had wanted to comment on the self-knowledge post---but I missed out, so---I'll try a backdoor approach, inasmuch as self-knowledge might be some sort of dark science anyway. A sage friend once asked: can a self ever know what it is while being itself? (my wiser friend sometimes reads this blog and might certainly have some comment to make concerning this commentary. Or not.) We do know what we BELIEVE ourselves to be. This is a given and, I think, unarguable. The problem that is individual, interpersonal, communal, national, international and global perspective is the disconnect between belief and reality. Belief and reality are only peripherally related, and with that thought, I'll leave kind readers to draw their own conclusions.

Interesting point, MJA. The magical tree of the knowledge of good and evil seems to have become intertwined so tightly with the tree of empirical knowledge that the two are essentially one in some areas.

"...I'm just trying to work this jigsaw puzzle, before it rains anymore..."---Rolling Stones, circa 1970s.---or, as previously suggested: You won't always want what you get. Philosophy as an outgrowth of rock and roll? Who would have thought?
Kindest Regards,
Neuman.

I am pleased that you do not question the intelligence of us commenters. That said, I do marvel at the evasiveness and obfuscation of our comments. Your tolerance and patience is, uh, admirable. I sometimes think that I'm reading Habermas, a master obfuscationist of our time. But, no, most contributors are clearer in their expressions---when they choose to be so. Here's a thought: philosophy (or science, or?...) is not a game---it is a means toward improvement of the human condition. Anything less is vanity. I'm hungry right now---hunger fogs the mind. That must be MY current problem.

When art imitates life, we are amused---enthralled---entertained. There is an upcoming media event concerning the Challenger deaths of 1986. I had been watching the "trailers" for this show, wondering who would be portrayed and in what way. Today, part of the mystery was revealed. William Hurt will act the part of Richard Feynman, the Nobel physicist who investigated the Challenger debacle, and died in 1988. It is all rather old now and Feynman's findings were simple enough: rubber, plasticity and cold temperature. But, it is a media event, after all---people have been paid; commerce has been appeased, and the intrepid astronauts are irretrievably dead. Hmmmmph. Feynman would be laughing, if he were not irretrievably dead. Science IS dark sometimes. But, we make it so for the least of reasons. January 28, 1986 was my birthday. At that time, I had never heard of Richard Feynman. Since then, I have heard of so much more. Well, you'll have that...

Thanks for the intro, Ken, and good luck with the Community. 
We've had some mention of the tree of knowledge of good and evil metaphor for our emergence as a curious species bent on finding things out, responsible, through our capacity to choose, for our application of the knowledge thus gained.  So far as we know we're the only such species around, so it seems reasonable to intuit that this is what we should principally focus on.  We can believe this pursuit of knowledge of the natural world is what we're here for.  If we are to hold anything sacred, that would be it.
There's some evidence increasing knowledge of the world and its workings is working well for us - ref Stephen Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' - but one way or the other, it's what we do.  Let's get on with enjoying the quest and  decline invitations to agonize about it.
Hugh