“Science and Morality” 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/science-and-morality/

When John Kozubeck wrote, “Science and Morality,” that was published by 

Scientific American on December 27, 2017, he did so in response to if science is a 

good source to base religion and morales on. Many people have started to believe that 

science has “become the means to the commodification of life” (Kozubek).  

Since the 1970s, temporary prohibition of gene engineering was tried. Since that 

time, science and morality have been a tricky subject to talk about. Since has been 

able to show people “what value or believe has its limitations”(Kozubek). Kozubek 

wants to show that religion isn’t the only type of moral knowledge, you can use science 

also. Kozubek’s argument is that instead of using religion anymore, people should use 

science and facts to base their moral decisions on, not some higher power like some 

people do. Kozubek shows this through the use of ethos, pathos, logos, and through 

the use of kairos.  

Kozubek is a reliable source because he has written many articles about 

science. For example, Kozubek has written, “The Myth of Genetic Superbabies” and 

“Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9.” Kozubek also 

has a masters degree in genetics from the University of Connecticut. In discussing this 

topic in the article, Kozubek is credible because of the wording that he uses. He uses 

words like “nihilism” and “monetization” that show he knows what he is talking about.  

Kozubek uses ethos by talking about famous scientists and that science people 

would know. For example, Ephraim Anderson, a British microbiologist, was talked 
about in Kozubek’s article. Anderson talks about genetically modified microbes and 

how they could cause a global threat to humans. Another example of ethos is shown 

by talking about philosopher Daniel Dennett and “conservatives such as Leon Kass” 

(Kozubek). Dennet says, “When we start treating living bodies as motherboards on 

which to assemble cyborgs, or as spare parts collection to be sold to the highest 

bidder, where will it all end?” (Dennett). Dennet’s quote is talking about how he wants 

people to “belief in the belief that something matters” (Kozubek). Dennett doesn’t 

believe in the science and believes in religion instead of basing his beliefs on science. 

Kozubek goes on to mention Steven Shapin, a Harvard science historian that wrote, 

“The Virtue of Scientific Thinking” in the ​Boston Review,​ talked about how that science 

plays a role in morality. Kozubek uses Shapin’s words to help support his idea that 

science is the best way to get your moral decisions. For example, Shapin talks about 

climate science has shaped values because it has then changed the decisions on what 

you believe in because of the climate. By learning the science of things, the morality of 

choices are changed. Thus, showing how science has affected the morality in the 

decisions that we make. By being more informed about the topic at hand, such as 

climate, helps the decisions that we make on what stand we want to take on climate 

change because we understand what is going on because of the science that is on it. 

Kozubek wants to show that by learning science and really understanding what 

science is about, then you will be able to make the correct moral decision.  

Kozubek goes on to use pathos by playing off of people’s fears about weapons. 

When recombinant DNA first emerged in 1970, people were scared that bioweapons 
would be created and genetic manipulation would become a big thing that could 

happen. Also, movies were made about genetic manipulation and bioweapons being 

created. Movies such as, ​Andromeda Strain and The Stand​ were created and this got 

people thinking that something terrible was going to happen and the world was going 

to be affected and a war would start because of what scientists have found. Kozubek 

only mentions one way that could appeal to emotions, he mostly uses facts to try and 

win his audience over.  

The way Kozubek uses logos is by talking about how algorithms are used to 

“shape societal decisions, dating decisions, or pick the next president” (Kozubek). With 

more time and data is going to improve how well science can regulate our lives then it 

can now. Kozubek is trying to show that if a logical person doesn’t understand their 

emotions, then they are able to use an algorithm to better help themselves with 

decisions they have to make. Kozubek included this in his essay because he wants to 

show the readers, who are most likely the smart kids who are very introverted, that 

they are able to find a way to better help them and if using an algorithm better helps 

them, then that is how they should do it.   

In 2017, the time Kozubek’s article was written, there were scientists who edited 

a patient’s DNA while it was still inside the body. This correlates with Kozubek’s article 

because Kozubek’s article is talking about specific science and that is the genetic 

science. Kozubek talks about how science can help improve things and it can. In 2017, 

scientists were able to help a person who had a genetic disease and cured them so 

they wouldn’t have to live with that disease anymore. By using kairos and writing this 
article around the time that genetic information and experiments that were happening, 

he knew that more people would read his article.  

Kozubek’s audience is people that are very educated people and scientists. 

Kozubek uses phrases that would only be understood by people who have done good 

research on this topic at hand. Kozubek talks about CRISPR and never explains what it 

is, expecting you to know what it is. Kozubek goes on to do that with my science 

subjects at hand. The audience he was trying to appeal to was also people looking for 

an answer between science and religion. “We trust that what scientists say is probably 

true, but there is no guarantee of this trust or belief” (Kozubek). This quote is saying 

how science can be proven wrong at any given time, but we don’t look and fully 

understand what is being proven to understand if this is something to believe in as 

your “religion.”  

In conclusion, Kozubek did a poor job on explaining the difference between 

science and morality and which one readers should believe in. Kozubek gave facts 

about how science is good, but wasn’t able to catch the reader into his grasps to make 

them believe that science is a better way to find morality decisions with instead of 

using religion to base your moral decisions on. Kozubek only gives facts on what other 

people say and was really confusing. It wasn’t until I printed off his article and 

highlighted key points that I then understood what Kozubek was trying to say.  

 
  

Work Cited

Kozubek, Jim. “Jim Kozubek.” ​Aeon​, https://aeon.co/users/jim-kozubek.

Kozubek, Jim. “Science and Morality.” ​Scientific American Blog Network,​ 27 Dec. 2017,

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/science-and-morality/.

“Stories by Jim Kozubek.” ​Scientific American,​

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/jim-kozubek/.