>
This is a story about how science cannot change the underlying "natural" state of a person.I think it's easier to look at it as a cautionary take. Many scientists (and engineers, and other types of creators) spend far too little time thinking about the implications of what they create. Certainly that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve people's lives, but we should be extremely careful. "First: do no harm" is a guiding principle that medical doctors are expected to follow, but many scientists perhaps don't think about enough.
Was it even ethical to perform this experiment on Charlie, someone who likely did not have the cognitive ability to understand well enough to consent? I wonder about that.
> The illiterate man is lifted above his situation by science.
He wasn't merely illiterate (and he wasn't illiterate; he could read and write, just not well). He was developmentally disabled. He didn't have the mental capacity to learn to read and comprehend better, or to write and spell better.
> I also don't like the linking of one's job to one's intelligence. The two are rarely directly related.
I don't think that's true. Certainly not for the example at hand. I think it's pretty common for developmentally disabled people to hold fairly simple, menial service jobs, assuming they can work at all.
I have a feeling -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that you're railing against the kind of "not very smart" person who fails upwards into high levels of management at a company. Sure, in that case a person's intelligence was not well-linked to that person's job. But this story is examining intelligence on a different level: not just the ability to learn, but the ability to understand the world around you. This failing-upwards executive may lack the ability to learn sufficient competence to earn these sorts of promotions based on merit, but most likely can understand the world well enough in order to exploit it to gain these unearned promotions.