Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hunt, Geoffrey (2012)
Publisher: AMSI
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: 501
The idea that science is nearing completion assumes that science is completable. I argue that it is incompletable in principle. This needs to be recognized if science is to be fully deployed for human welfare, addressing critical global problems of the age. Nonrecognition of incompletability leads not only to the diversion of human, intellectual, material and energy resources away from critical human problems but exacerbates the neglect, misidentification and misconceived prioritization of human problems and the goals of science. The case for incompletability is outlined in terms of three dimensions of scientific development: theoretical, technological and economic. There appear to be insurmountable theoretical barriers (for example, Gödel’s Theorem and the possible inconstancy of “laws of nature”), growing technological uncertainties (for example, in pharmaceuticals and nanotechnology) and an economic trend to diminishing marginal returns on investment (for example, the Large Hadron Collider and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). These dimensions may converge at a limit, the Lambda Limit. Dire human problems that are resolvable with current science and technology are neglected, such as water supplies and the eradication of malaria. The author argues that one reason for this is that science is misconceived as the ideology of scientism, a universal project in which “everything” can eventually be explained and predicted.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Horgan, J. The End of Science. London: Abacus (1998).
    • 2. Cited in Horgan, op.cit., p. 19.
    • 3. Hawking, S.W. A Brief History of Time, pp. 156, 169. London: Transworld Publishers (1988).
    • 4. Crick, F. The Astonishing Hypothesis, New York: Charles Scribner Sons (1994). Cited in Horgan, op.cit., p. 164.
    • 5. Horgan, op.cit., p. 261.
    • 6. For an overview see Smith, P. An Introduction to Gödel's Theorems. Cambridge: University Press (2007).
    • 7. The controversies are captured briefly in Franzén, T. Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse. Massachusetts: A.K. Peters ( 2005).
    • 8. Barrow, J.D. and Webb, J.K. Inconstant Constants, Scientific American, June, 2005.
    • 9. Barrow, J. D. Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits, pp. 186-188. London: Vintage (1999).
    • 10. For a non-technical overview see Barrow, J. D. & Tipler, F. J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: University Press (1986).
    • 11. Feynman, R. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, p. 129. London: Penguin (1990).
    • 12. Weinberg, S. The First Three Minutes, p. 154. New York: Basic Books (1977).
    • 13. Quoted by Barad, K. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, p. 254. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press (2007).
    • 14. Scannell, J. W., Blanckley, A., Boldon, H., Warrington, B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 11 (2012) 191-200.
    • 15. Le Fanu, J. The Rise & Fall of Modern Medicine. London: Little, Brown & Co (1999).
    • 16. The Human Genome: Ten Years Later. Science in the News, accessed 10 February 2012 at: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/ sitnflash_wp/2010/06/issue72/
    • 17. Paynter, N.P., Chasman, D.I., Pare, G. et al. Association between a literature-based genetic risk score and cardiovascular events in 19,313 women. JAMA 303 (2010) 631-637.
    • 18. These European Commission FP7 projects NanoImpactNet, NaPolyNet and COST-FA0904.
    • 19. For an overview see Hunt, G. & Mehta, M. (eds). Nanotechnology; Risk, Ethics & Law. London: Earthscan (2006).
    • 20. See: http://www.nano.gov/node/750 and http:// cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/ec_programmes.htm
    • 21. Hunt, G. & Riediker, M. Building expert consensus on uncertainty and complexity in nanomaterial safety. Nanotechnology Perceptions 7 (2011) 82-98.
    • 22. For background on the LHC see http://www.lhc.ac.uk/ and on the major accident see http://www.nature.com/news/ 2010/100223/full/4631008a.html
    • 23. Horgan, op.cit., p. 62.
    • 24. For background on I.T.E.R. see http://www.iter.org/ and on the overspend see the BBC report at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/science-environment-16170550
    • 25. This remark is quoted at http://oilprice.com/AlternativeEnergy/Nuclear-Power/Overcoming-the-ImpossibleDeveloping-Nuclear-Fusion.html
    • 26. BBC News 14 December 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ science-environment-16170550 (accessed 10 February 2012).
    • 27. National Science Foundation, R&D as Percentage of GDP Continues Upward Climb, (NSF 99 -357), 4 October 1999, accessed 10 February 2012 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ databrf/sdb99357.htm
    • 28. Tainter, J.A. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: University Press (1988).
    • 29. Tainter, op. cit., p. 211.
    • 30. Hunt, G. Nanotechnology: negotiating global priorities. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12 (2008) 275-277.
    • 31. See the Roll Back Malaria website at http:// www.rbm.who.int/globaladvocacy/pr2008-01-25.html
    • 32. Hutton, G. and Bartram, J. Global costs of attaining the Millennium Development Goal for water supply and sanitation. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 86 (2008) 1-80.Accessed 1 February 2012 at http://www.who.int/ bulletin/volumes/86/1/07-046045/en/index.html
    • 33. For further explanation see Barrow, J.D. Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits, ch. 6: Cosmological Limits. London: Vintage (1999).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article