Should ethics restrain science?
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
I'm studying bioengineering right now, and the leaps and bounds you have to go through to get any experiment allowing animals approved is incredibly difficult and annoying. Trust me when I say, ethics gets in the way of scientific progress, alot. Not to say that's a bad thing, but the red tape is hampering progress.The infamous SCAMola said:
Yes and no
Some of the things ethics limit in science could provide us with massive benefits if they were researched.
On the other hand, this would allow us to produce even more weapons that are designed to kill people in the most inhumane way possible.
Also, didn't the Nazis try to find Atlantis?
Some of the things ethics limit in science could provide us with massive benefits if they were researched.
On the other hand, this would allow us to produce even more weapons that are designed to kill people in the most inhumane way possible.
Also, didn't the Nazis try to find Atlantis?
Absolutely. You can't simply disregard the well-being of others for the sake of greater knowledge that you're not even certain you'll obtain.
I really dont think that the whole cutting peoples arms off then sewing them back on was a very significant discovery. I think that scientists back then already knew that it wouldnt work. Or testing the effects of poisonous gas over and over again, to see if the jews would magically develop an immunity to it.
I suppose the method in which it is done is significant. For example, using people on death row against, say, european immigrants.
I suppose the method in which it is done is significant. For example, using people on death row against, say, european immigrants.
What about volunteers? Or people who would pay to be improved?Skeleon said:
Like you want some new bodyparts (mechanical or organic) which you can control in the same way you control you natural bodyparts. This could be an addition to your body or as a replacement for other bodyparts which you may have lost, not been born with or simply not functional enough for what you want to do (like a mechanical hand which can freely rotate).
EDIT: Or even as a scientist experiment on yourself.
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!
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!
No. Science should only be restrained when it has clear negative consequences, not because someone says it's not "right."
Yes, like that, but also if you need to be stronger to do your job, or need mechanical/digital eyes with functions like zooming or night-vision. So you don't need to carry around binoculars or microscopes all the time...Skeleon said:
EDIT: or just to improve your eyesight if you don't see very well or are blind.
Hmmm... yes and no. I believe individual human rights (as we have defined them) should trump all practices, and in that respect I would oppose forcibly sacrificing anyone on the altar of science, even the most egregious criminals. If someone volunteered for a radical and dangerous experiment, then so be it. I believe that all animals also have some basic rights, and should at least be treated humanely, and at best should be free from experimentation.
By that same token, I would allow some things that are presently considered unethical. I would find research on human genetic engineering permissible so long as we don't begin pre-determining the fates of engineered men and women. Human cloning would be OK too, with the caveat that we afford clones the same rights as we do all human beings.
To paraphrase my point, ethics should not restrain science, but it should prevent it from trampling essential human rights. Beyond that, the concerns of society are immaterial.
By that same token, I would allow some things that are presently considered unethical. I would find research on human genetic engineering permissible so long as we don't begin pre-determining the fates of engineered men and women. Human cloning would be OK too, with the caveat that we afford clones the same rights as we do all human beings.
To paraphrase my point, ethics should not restrain science, but it should prevent it from trampling essential human rights. Beyond that, the concerns of society are immaterial.
Depends on what you mean by ethics. It's a very difficult subject, and something i would prefer to talk about in a debate, and not in a single post
Ethics should restrain SOME science... This is all sujective though, depending on what you mean by ethics and experimentation.
For instance: what happened to Galileo? That was STUPID. However, the Nazis were ripping people apart against their will. Kind of different from Galileo.
For instance: what happened to Galileo? That was STUPID. However, the Nazis were ripping people apart against their will. Kind of different from Galileo.
Yes, it should. However, the things in science are not discovered because it is necessary (or even a good idea), they are discovered because it was possible to do so. That, above all is what guides science.