Should ethics restrain science?

[Agayek]

If it's that big an issue, use prisoners, preferably those on death row.
They don't deserve rights anyway.

Eh, I'd tend to disagree, but that becomes situational. It all depends on what they've done, how strong the evidence is for their conviction, and what the experiments will involve.

For example, convicted serial rapist with definitive DNA evidence implicating him should be used for just about any experiment anyone can think of, no matter how twisted. On the other hand, if all of the evidence is circumstantial, it should at least be limited to "fairly sure there will be no permanent damage" kind of tests, if testing is allowed at all.

 

[almost cool]

Defends on how much you liked bioshock, and hl2.

 

[imperialwar]

To discover a cure is to know the complete causation of a condition ? so then the people with the cure can then infect everyone with the condition and hold them to ransom with the cure.

I call it the condition as you can insert your Virus / Epidemic of choice.

Having said that i can see the use of a research station in Antartica, where death row prisoners and volentary Terminal patents are tested on.

Someone mentioned Death Row Patients being "released" if they survive the treatment ? That just smacks of a Zombie outbreak to me.

and i just have to say: "she turned me into a Newt. I got better but" I dunno why but the whole experimentation thing bought this quote to mind.

 

[Xan Krieger]

You want bodies on which to do research look no further then death row. In this way rather then a prisoner's death being wasted it could be used to improve everyone else's lives. This would be killing two birds with one stone, executing the wicked and advancing science.

 

[Runic]

I say.... yes. It should restrain it depending on what the hell the scientist is willing to achieve. I do not believe in the end justifying the needs. Now I'm not saying it should do it for every damn stuff, but at least I don't want a scientist going ahead and experimenting on live human subjects with harmful and/or lethal stuff just so he can find a better way to cure baldness.

It really depends on what can be considered a line that would transform us from scientists to cold and heartless monsters.

 

[Kyoufuu]

RESOUNDING YES.

It says should ethics restrain science. Take apart the question. If you say 'no' it means science will stop at nothing to get better, no matter how many people die or are killed. It means better weapons which require accurate testing on humans (chemical, biological, nuclear). It means growing people to farm their organs. It means testing completely new drugs on people instead of guinea pigs. etc, etc, etc

If you say yes, it simply means that -somewhere-, not defined where, but -somewhere- there exists a limit.

EDIT: To those of you saying 'use prisoners on death row for tests', that is ethics RIGHT THERE. It is saying "don't use innocents, they don't deserve it." How is that not ethics?

 

[dantheman931]

I think it would depend on what we were trying to find out.

For example, if we're trying to find a disease that will kill everyone, then I say we should do no unethical research, or ethical for that matter, to discover how.

Though, if it requires us to hurt a few people to save many, it would be worth it.

As long as it wasn't me being tested on, of course!

That's the problem, right there. People talk about not wanting ethics to stand in the way of science, until it's *their* rights being violated. As for testing on convicts, what if you happen to snag one who was falsely accused and is actually innocent?

edit: I got beaten to this point. My bad.

 

[TaborMallory]

In science, ethics shouldn't matter, at least for some subjects (hint: survival).

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I remember 5 years ago when John Kerry was running for president, he was talking about the issue of stem cells. Responding to the (then-active, now-lifted) ban on research, he said it was "wrong to sacrifice science for ideology."

I was like, "Wait a sec - you realize that what you just said is YOUR ideology, right???"

Anyway, like the third or fourth poster said, the debate will never be solved, seeing as how everyone has a different ethic. The root of the issue is philosophical - how we define concepts like "life" and "innocent" and "greater good," if that even applies - and like it or not, science alone cannot decide these issues for us.

 

[dalek sec]

Well yes. Like its okay to research stem cells, but not to engineer people.

Agreed.
Science is important.
But there are limits.

Pretty much this as well, I'm all for advancing our skills but there are some limits. I really don't think we want a real Davros running around... unless it's me of course.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Everyone's ethics are slightly different. Science will progress as there will always be people who will have looser morals than others and push the boundary.

No, ethics are a detriment to humanity and should be banished so science can prosper. I'd like the world to be like Rapture, except without the compromising of values and exploitation of the market.

A Rapture-like city / country would work wonders for the world. I pick Antarctica as the host continet, it's only home to scientists and penguins right now.

Rapture didn't end up too well though. Still, unrestricted scientific research could create many interesting things...

If it gets out of hand then we'll

Spoiler

Send in the Boss' brainwashed son.

 

[massau]

it may if the people agree with it that they can die than it is good.
but if u just do it with people that don't want it it will be bad

 

[Agayek]

I have a problem with the idea of someone with little evidence convicting them of their crime being on death row.

I do too, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[gr33l]

never has stopped sience, never will
whats possible will eventually be done

 

[Xelanath]

I remember 5 years ago when John Kerry was running for president, he was talking about the issue of stem cells. Responding to the (then-active, now-lifted) ban on research, he said it was "wrong to sacrifice science for ideology."

I was like, "Wait a sec - you realize that what you just said is YOUR ideology, right???"

Er... science wasn't/isn't sacrificed for it. What's your point?

 

[Jharry5]

Ethics come down to what you believe what is right and what is wrong. They are a good thing. What can problematise this is each person's views differ slightly.
If the unethical research of a few could save many, then it should be used.
If it's just research for research's sake, then no.

At least, that's how I see it. This thread has already proved that others see the subject differently...