WHAT ARE THE LIMITS TO SCIENCE?
The Limits Of Science is a book published in 1984 by Oxford University Press and written by Sir Peter Brian Medawar (1915 – 2 October 1987) a British biologist and writer, who won the Nobel Prize in 1960 for work on graft rejection and the discovery of acquired immune tolerance. His work is now fundamental to tissue and organ transplants. He is regarded as the "father of transplantation” and “remembered for his wit both in person and in popular writings. Stephen Jay Gould referred to him as "the cleverest man I have ever known”.
The Limits of Science jumps off to a fantastic start- humble, funny, with plenty of small jokes aimed at science culture while showing a wide breadth of knowledge in different areas, especially poetry. It’s a very enjoyable book and Medawar loves and knows his poetry. Early on though the trouble begins, as perhaps predictably, for a winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology whose work probably saved and prolonged many lives, Medawar goes all in for the most fulsome praise of Science, calling it “by far man’s highest achievement”.
Yet Medawar admits that science has no role in creating a government, but, isn’t a reasonably just and fair government a greater achievement than Science, both in the present moment and historically speaking? Of course it is. Just askin’!
And with such, this brilliant and erudite man of Science by ignoring this contradiction betrays a massive blind spot. In other words, in The Limits Of Science, the limits of Science appear to be almost none.
Medawar ends the book with a ringing defense of his atheism.
Sir Medawar states that Science can do anything except claim knowledge of “first and last causes”.
Medawar does manage to spend one entire paragraph on Metaphysics. WOW. (Sir Francis Bacon, ‘father of modern Science’, said that his “inductive method” would “end Metaphysics”! Medawar doesn’t go quite that far. He admits some value in metaphysics. Strangely, he finds “fraud” to be a much bigger issue in metaphysics than in “science”. He gives no details on either type of fraud.
Medawar suddenly make gratuitous praise of government fluoridation of water, totally out of nowhere, as if to say “YES science should have a place in public policy!”. He then repeatedly praises vaccination, bringing up Edward Jenner, the British scientist and Freemason who pioneered the concept of vaccines and created the smallpox vaccine. This was perhaps the origin of ‘heroic science’ as policy. Where men and women began to believe that they needed science needed in order to ‘repair nature’.
Medawar does write this: “I do not believe that, and indeed I consider it a cosmic blunder to believe…that the exercise of reason is sufficient to explain our condition and where necessary to remedy it”. Huh, so why the constant praise of vaccine Mr. Medal? He also states: “I fear we may never be able to answer the questions about the first and last things that have been the subject of this short essay- questions to do with the origin, purpose and destiny of man…”
This statement is as far as Medawar will go with any entertainment of the thought that Science might have limits.
It seems to pain him to admit this, and he spends little time examining what this means, ending the above sentence with “..we know however that as individuals and as political people, we do have some say in what comes next, so what could our destiny be except what we make it?” That statement is vague avoids the nitty gritty the assertion of the unknowability of first and last causes raises. That question is “what does science really know?”
“…what could our destiny be except what we make it” means how do we use “science” within politics for policy, yet since science, as Medawar admits, is useless in government, this difficult question is again almost completely ignored.
In terms of other limits, no mention is made that science has no idea at all of how a thought is formed in the the chemical soup (as science sees it) of the brain. Where does a thought come from? How does a memory of that thought get “stored” and recalled? Will science ever have any clue at all? The very basis of science itself, thinking and reason, will always be a mystery to science because human consciousness is a mystery to science and it even appears to be a topic that is beyond science. How can consciousness study the ultimate mystery-consciousness? Medawar does not weigh in.
How then should government and science function? Who should do the advising? Who decides on what Science to use. At the present this is decided purely by corruption and the spending and advertising, not by reason.
Medawar makes no mention of the strange brew and enormous opportunity for fraud and corruption where science meets government, and the making of policy that will create so much commerce and profit. Fraud in science is much much, much, much more remunerative than fraud in metaphysics.
Medawar blithely ignores these big questions while seeming to address them. He did say he wanted to write a short book…but he could have at least thrown these questions out there as areas needing to be addressed. These issues are of critical importance and need to ongoing discussion, debate and trial and error. Perhaps they are not truly solvable with any certainty. But let’s at least admit these questions exist!
So what are the limits of science? Science is great for mechanics- but once the line from chemistry to a living organism is crossed—into biology—science needs to admit that it can rarely if ever provide much certainty. Using physics to be a doctor or a health coach is like using religion to form a government.
Biological life is infinitely complex, and the incredible accomplishments of science in the techno-sphere of buildings and bridges and gadgets and cell phones and airplanes doesn’t translate in the same way to biology. The improvement of life expectancy in modern humans and in “quality of life” (although these claims are debatable, maybe ancient Sumerians lived as well and as long as modern Americans) is based almost solely on electricity and the internal combustion engine, with a resulting improved transportation and improved nutrition, all created by the mechanical sciences- the Physics.
Just for instance, the rate of cancer is skyrocketing continually despite the declared “war on cancer” in the 1970s. Science spent 200 billion dollars on cancer research last year (2025). It could be fairly said that it is science itself that has caused the huge rise in cancer rates!
Science is nowhere near close to understanding life, but it has made great strides in understanding Physics. Life is infinitely more complex than physics because it includes the aspect of consciousness and the emotions. How does Consciousness fit with Physics? We are physical beings with consciousness. How do they fit together?
The mechanical parts of life (molecules and atoms) are communicating with each other, somehow, through consciousness.
How hydrogen reacts with oxygen can be sorted out. It’s mechanical/electrical. It’s Physics. But when the hypothalamus gland releases a hormone that triggers the pituitary gland to release a hormone that triggers the adrenal gland to release a hormone that then regulates body temperature, sweat glands and glucose metabolism and heart rate well then we are in an entirely different area—where there are so many different inputs—that doing actual science, meaning the controlling of all variables, is literally impossible. How does the CRH hormone released by the hypothalamus know where to go…how does it recognize the pituitary gland? How does it dock in exactly the right place in the pituitary gland in a totally different location? How then does the ACTH hormone released by the pituitary gland travel to the kidney to dock in the adrenal grand which then releases the cortisol that travels to multiple other organs triggering an increased heart rate and further nervous and endocrine system responses? ALL IN A SPLIT SECOND! How does that work, science?
This living but physical part of our existence is triggered by the emotional and mental side of our existence which is METAPHYSICAL isn’t it Mr. Medawar? A single thought can release the hormone cascade of the hypothalamus pituitary adrenal axis and a pounding heart is the result. All from a single thought/emotion. But science doesn’t know what a thought is.
Kudos to science for all the remarkable discoveries regarding the pathways of molecules in the body but science needs to admit that it has created more questions than it has answered. How do those molecules know what to do? They do seem to have agency.
With such a large degree of uncertainty surrounding the near-infinity of complex biology, of just one single person, creating policy based on an always incomplete science for a collective of 350 million adds yet another layer of complexity to any advice science can offer effecting policy!
Since each individual has a unique biochemistry and then each group of people has a unique social structure, making policy decisions using “science” may be merely guesswork, give little aid or comfort and may make things much worse. Wrongly prescribed or bad medicine itself is the third leading cause of death in America. There’s the thalidomide disaster, nuclear weapons, mercury and aluminum in vaccines and the fiasco of the global response to Covid.
Science Will Win? Trust The Science? No thanks!
It is often the Science that kills us.
Science needs to address these issues and the blanket mandates and government decrees demanding compliance by individuals to specific health procedures need to be taken off the table.
Perhaps we should focus, for now, on basic issues like keeping water clean and keeping air clean but allow public debates on every issue.
Science has become corrupt. For instance, the science on fluoride has, since Medawar’s book was published, shown fluoride in drinking water to be more toxic than lead, to lower IQ, and to have little to no effect on the health of teeth. (Flouride needs to be applied directly, like in toothpaste, to be effective)
Would Medawar read THAT science, and change his stance on his public policy advice on flouridation? One would certainly hope so.
Robert Frederick 2024, revised 2026