Can the hold up on research stop now?

[Reginald]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I look at the older Bond films....some rich tycoon ..isolated secret island research facility cooking up something forbidden and evil.

..then I look at the wealth of someone like Bill Gates ..and, just looking at Bill Gates ..and imagining just how many issues he had to acquired just by looking like Bill Gates ..having his lunch money stolen routinely ..sand kicked in his face ...etc..etc.

..and realize that it's not all that far fetched.


Careful. Some people can easily spin that into an argument for severe restrictions on the wealth of individuals or companies. If Mr. Gates might hire Dr. No, then we'd better take away the former's money pronto. It would make us all safer, no?

 

[Tempest]

Rich people are evil and need to have their wealth taken away anyway, just ask Gary.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Julian, your correct use of "implying" is refreshing. Infer as you wish.

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: Reginald
Originally Posted By: jmac
So it can be said that some limits do have to be placed on scientists.

Now the question is where and how are those limits set?


No. The first question is, "By whom?"

Let's review the candidates.

Politicians. Because we can always rely on them to follow the highest standards of ethics and objectivity. And because we know that they're all really, really smart.

Busninessfolk. Because we know that they never do stupid, unethical, immoral, or short-sighted things for the sake of a quick profit. And because they're all really, really smart.

Religious leaders. Because we know they're always objective, always open to other viewpoints, always willing to follow the chain of reasoning wherever it leads. And because they're all really, really smart.

The general public. Because we know that most citizens have spent years, if not decades, studying science and ethics so that they understand the details and nuances of any debate involving science and ethics. And because they're all really, really smart people who hardly ever fall for pseudoscience, religious frauds, political frauds, or business frauds.

I'll stick with scientists watching, checking, reviewing, and regulating one another, thank you.


And now we have the crux of the matter, because I have known scientists, and I find that they generally don't choose any better than the general public when it comes to ethical questions, so I do not trust them to be any more adept at self regulating than the general society as a whole. It always comes back to philosophical questions, and that is where I will leave this as that can go on forever.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

"I'll stick with scientists watching, checking, reviewing, and regulating one another, thank you."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not when they're using taxpayer dollars, thank you.

 

[1sttruck]

'Science' has as much or little ethics as math or history. Science is a process. If ethical behavior or oversight is of interest then one needs to look at the people, organizations, nations, etc., who are doing science.

One can attempt to develop ethical standards but those always turn out to be relative, typically with an arbritary nature to them, as one can almost always describe a situation where engaging in the specified unethical behavior is actually the ethical thing to do. Consider behavior in the not so distant past which now is unthinkable, unbeliveably barbaric. If the ethical standards can change relatively quickly one has to consider what our standards are now and how they will be perceived in the future.

One of my favorite ways of looking at 'absolute, unchanging, universal' standards is just to look at a longer time scale to see how 'absolute' they really are. One also needs to look at the context of the standard, seeing what the other standards were. The worst behavior seems to be when differeing 'absolute' standards clash.

Instead of trying to determine what standards are the 'most ethical' I find it more useful to look for more developed moral reasoning. The most interesting work I've seen on the subject is that done by Kohlberg, which I first encountered in the early 70s. This seems to allow one to try to sort out national, cultural and religious differences, and different situations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
If you are taking a perfectly viable embryo and start ripping it apart for lab experiments...you had better start asking some serious ethical questions. We were all at the same stage at one point.


A lab is a better place for an unwanted embryo than the garbage.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
And yet, he (an evil rich person) gives $38 billion to charity....


It would be a perfect cover for "Dr. Evil".

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Rich people are evil and need to have their wealth taken away anyway, just ask Gary.


Yes ..while they might not be evil, you should "give" them all of your support. Then they might let you shine their boots with your tongue. Just ask Tempest. He intends to better himself to the level of tongue broker/overseer.