Should ethics restrain science?

[DrDeath3191]

Yes. Without ethics governing our scientific development, we could do some very serious damage to society.

 

[meece]

You can't put an arbitary line through a grey area.

Stuff ethics.

 

[JodaSFU]

Maybe pharmaceutical companies and the likes should start investing more in treatments for diseases, rather than spending the majority of their budget on anti-wrinkle products and other "beautification" treatments (i.e. plastic surgery). Once that happens, we can start talking about suspending ethics in medical research.

Who knows what would happen if they spent >50% of their budget on research that ACTUALLY mattered.

 

[Serious_Stalin]

Its funny that me and my friend were discussing nazi experiments in the pub the other night! There is so little we know about the human brain and to make advancements we either have to do sick stuff to humans or monkeys.

Personally I concluded that criminals who have offended and then reoffended for a very serious crime such as rape, murder or paedophilia should be available as subjects for experimentation. It is possibly a more terrifying prospect than the death penalty.
Obviously it is down to opinion and i'm not sure much of society would stand by with these actions.

I also agree with cloning and think it could benefit us in the future. Not to create complete human clones (which scares me) but to create organs and limbs for people who need them.

 

[Tales of Golden Sun]

Science should be restrained sometimes.
I mean, just because we have the possibility to research cloning doesn't mean we should.
The world is overpopulated as it is, we don't need even more humans walking the earth.

 

[santaandy]

Ethics are what makes us people instead of savages, so yes.

 

[dwightsteel]

I've been looking into the Nazi's experiments and though it was of course very ethically unsound, but it did allow the doctors to uncover many interesting things. So I began to think, should ethics stand in the way of science?

Because if morality and ethics were thrown aside, who knows what could happen. Perhaps with more invasive surgery and radical treatment a cure for cancer or Aids could be found?. Looking at the bigger picture it could even be good for humanity as a whole, for example what if 1000 people die to find a cure that saves 10 Million.

So my question to you, should ethics stand in the way of scientific advancement?

From the perspective of atheists (or in my case, the agnostic), an ideal world would give everyone the perspective of the logical choice, unencumbered by religious views (whether religious folk choose to believe it or not, science is the natural enemy of religion. They cannot and will not co-habitate peacefully). The choice, dictated not by ethical or moral quandaries of the individual, but the good of the majority.
If all people thought that way, I would postulate, the populace would agree, that in the ideal of creating a stronger, more resilient race, we would agree to let science move forward, sacrificing the few to serve the needs of the many.
But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the politicians who swear to uphold the constitution, refuse to uphold one of the most basic tenants: the separation of church and state. We live in a world were the rights of the individual almost always take priority of the needs of the many (Global warming is an obvious choice as an example, but what about the lack of capital punishment in most "civilized" parts of the world, instead opting to shell out millions of dollars taking care of single individuals in the prison system?). We live in a world where ethical and moral considerations are priority number one among the countries responsible for paying the bills of the scientists who would be making said groundbreaking discoveries (or at least claim it as top priority, while waging pointless wars where thousands of innocents die needlessly).
We wish (trekkies rejoice) that we were Vulcans. But we're humans. We yield the ability to use logic when it's suits us, but are controlled by our emotions. Even the most distant of intellectual minds will more then likely err on the side of emotion when the pressure is on. These same emotional considerations which encompass ethics and morality, also give us beautiful paintings, stirring ballads, and poetry that will bring a tear to anyone's eye. It gives us heated discussions and debates that make us feel like we're contributing to the whole, even if it's just a small piece of it. It allows us our escapisms that we enjoy so much.

Whew. That was far more than I intended to write, so I'll cap it off with this. Opting to cancel out our emotional responses that give us our concepts of "ethics" and "morals", in the name of advancing science, would force the human race as a whole to accept our emotions as a secondary part of ourselves, giving the overriding command to logic. It's a double edged sword, because we might end up sacrificing the things in life that we enjoy the most. Or not. I could be wrong.