Can the hold up on research stop now?

[Reginald]

Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
"If you asked people doing basic research, "So what's this stuff going to be good for?" they might not have an answer. They might not even be thinking in such terms."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if the Nazi scientists had the same attitude? Maybe the scientists at Tuskegee?
Without taking a side (because I can see both sides), science can run amok, in my opinion.


And another confirmation of Godwin's Law.

Actually, though, the example of one German scientist illustrates the folly of invoking Nazis in any discussion of science. Was Wernher von Braun a good guy or a bad guy? Neither, of course. The political leaders who decided how to use the knowledge produced by von Braun were good guys or bad guys. The Nazi political leaders were bad guys. The Americans for whom von Braun worked after the war were good guys. Von Braun did rocket science. Whether that science produced weapons or communications satellites was--and is, and always shall be--a political decision.

Don't bother bringing up Herr Doktor Mengele. He was a Nazi first, last, and always, and a deranged sadist to boot. By definition, he was not a scientist.

Science produces knowledge. It cannot run amok, unless by that expression you mean that you fear knowledge itself. The uses of science are decisions made by political leaders or business leaders. They certainly can run amok.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Reginald


Science produces knowledge. It cannot run amok, unless by that expression you mean that you fear knowledge itself. The uses of science are decisions made by political leaders or business leaders. They certainly can run amok.


But certainly scientists have "ethics". How are those set?

 

[Julian]

With science?

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Julian
With science?


That'll work.

 

[javacontour]

Science itself is not ethical or unethical. But the same cannot be said for scientists.

Being a scientist doesn't eliminate character traits. So while the underlying science behind something is ethically neutral, unethical behavior is not limited to political and business leaders.

 

[Julian]

Originally Posted By: Reginald
Don't bother bringing up Herr Doktor Mengele. He was a Nazi first, last, and always, and a deranged sadist to boot. By definition, he was not a scientist.
Whether someone's behavior is "ethical" or "unethical" depends on which ethical system (standard) is being used for comparison. A person who identifies as a sadist and who acts sadistically is being ethically adherent. Agreed? Being a Nazi or a sadist doesn't necessarily preclude being a "scientist". Being deranged might.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Science itself is not ethical or unethical. But the same cannot be said for scientists.

Being a scientist doesn't eliminate character traits. So while the underlying science behind something is ethically neutral, unethical behavior is not limited to political and business leaders.

Thank you for pointing that out concisely.

 

[Reginald]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Science itself is not ethical or unethical. But the same cannot be said for scientists.

Being a scientist doesn't eliminate character traits. So while the underlying science behind something is ethically neutral, unethical behavior is not limited to political and business leaders.


Oops. Botched the previous attempt to post. Sorry.

Of course scientists can be unethical. They're human. Every now and then, one gets caught (generally by other scientists, it bears noting) falsifying or ignoring data. As a practical matter, though, scientists very rarely have the resources--power and wealth--to turn bad ethics into bad public, political, or business policy. Scientists hardly ever have the authority to tell a big bunch of people, "Hey--do this" and have the people obey. That's why I believe scientists are the least scary group of people in the world.

 

[d00df00d]

^^ Also a good point.

I work with almost no one but scientists and they're all pretty frickin' harmless.

 

[1sttruck]

Asking about the 'ethics of science' is like asking about the 'ethics of mathematics', and consequently if mathematicians are ethical.

The wiki has a concise statement on the subject; "Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook."

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook."

That's a very nice idea but the reality is that these things are never truly separated.

If a scientist is doing something that can affect life, he had better have ethics. You can drop 25 people off a boat and see how long it takes for them to drown in the name of science. Is it ethical?

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.

 

[d00df00d]

I was going to object to that same line, but for different reasons: science has a LOT to say about religion, politics, culture, and philosophy, and also about what they deal with...

Ethics are indeed absolutely vital to science. In fact, I think a lot of scientists would agree that taking ethics out of the equation is poor science, and not just for political reasons.

I also agree that you should start asking questions when you rip apart an embryo because we were all at that stage. In fact, I would take it a lot further: before you were an embryo, you were part of the sky, the earth, and the water around your parents. Bits and pieces of that world slowly came together over time in their bodies to make what eventually grew into you as you are today. At what point do you cease to be matter and start to be a human being?

Very interesting question IMO. Certainly illustrates the meaninglessness of saying that a "potential" human being is the same as a human being.

 

[Pablo]

Some of you didn't actually read what I wrote/asked and went off in some (defensive?) tangents.

Quote:

But certainly scientists have "ethics". How are those set?

 

[d00df00d]

Quick summary:

1. There are ethical guidelines within each field, and they are usually taught in the schools (or at least the respectable ones).

2. Certain ethics simply pervade scientific work, e.g. the ones against taking other people's work as one's own. That helps generate an atmosphere of respect.

3. The law has a lot to say about informed consent, liability, etc.

4. The institutions that fund research do not want to be associated with experiments conducted in an unethical manner, so they place requirements on research that cover those bases.

5. Experiments on human subjects have to be approved by institutional review boards (IRBs), composed of anyone who might have anything to say on the topic: scientists, professors, business people, lawyers, community leaders, laypeople, etc.

And so on.

 

[jmac]

I think the above is all well accepted in general in the western civ.
But where does that one scientist that said to heck with the rest of you, I want to be the first to clone a human I don't care about your morals or ethics, and is proceeding to do just that.
There seems to be an Italian doctor, a group -Clonaid that appears to be in the US, a China group, who knows who else.
It is fine to say that all scientists are ethical, but that has been clearly proven to be false.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/06/clone.doctor/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2517351.stm
http://www.globalchange.com/clonaid.htm

 

[d00df00d]

Who said all scientists are ethical?

If it makes you feel any better, I think you can be fairly sure it wasn't a scientist...

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Tempest]

And yet, he (an evil rich person) gives $38 billion to charity....

 

[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.