Re: Flawed th

["HUNTER, DAVE" <rdas001@revenue.state.il.us>]

Brett,

In regards to examining technology before releasing it, often times we 
don't have a clue what it will do to the community we love.  Probably 
today, we have a better framework for asking and answering some of those 
questions, but we will always be limited by "I don't know what I don't 
know."  Some of the implicatians are so far beyond our experience that we 
can't conceive of them and even if we did, we might not be able to 
measure the effect with existing tools.

It would be good to ask those questions, and better if more people did 
ask those questions (look at recalls on children's toys and cribs and 
things like that), but we dare not hold back the issuance of all 
technology until all the questions are answered.  We would come to a 
screetching halt rather quickly.  But new (and old) technology needs to 
be monitored.  From time to time, new questions may have to be developed 
based on observation of the effects.  

Some where in the past few weeks, some one said something to the effect 
that the great words of science are not "Eureka, I found it!!" but 
"Hmmmm, why did that happen?"   Things like the hole in the ozone may not 
have even thought of when aerosols were invented.  Who would have dreamed 
of a connection between a spray can and a huge hole in the atmosphere?  
Even now there is not complete agreement on the association.  

Just some comments on your comments.

Dave Hunter
dhunter@revenue.state.il.us