First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply When ethics hold science back
20759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
So im all for ethics and science both are important however i have noticed sometimes peoples ethics holds science back especially when it's for the greater good.

I have been trying to keep up with a scientific test that's being done to try bring dead people (brain dead) back to life and first of all anyone would think ...that sounds like it's worth trying if they have research done and believe they have a shot.

however for a while they had to wait for the ethical boards approval and whilst it did somehow get through (alot of people are pissed and saying it's unethical to bring someone brain dead back to life) it makes me wonder...

When do we put science before ethics for the greater good of everyone.
Do ethics sometimes hold science back for better or worse.

Want peoples opinions!
20792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
whatever is necessary to push science, humans be damned who cares all we are, are sentient sacks of meat!

(also you make alot of forum posts :D)
10596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
Just remember this simple mnemonic: "If you're at war, ethics out the door."
It isn't so much 'ethics' that get in the way of the advancement of science, but people entirely uninvolved in the process, who have no understanding of the process, and who wouldn't understand the results if they tried.
Since many times it seems like all they have to do to stall the advancement of science is to say that they have moral or ethical qualms about the necessity or whatever, they do so whenever they think they can use that to their advantage.
That's why war is so great. It lets you do all sorts of research and development and there's nothing anyone can really do to stop it, because it's all for the War Effort.
7878 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
8500 / F / Apollo...
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
Just like ethics hinders business, it also hinders science. I had a relative who passed on in 2008 and is "refrigerated" or whatever because he paid to be brought back to life if the opportunity arises. It would be cool to see him revived, but I'm picturing some Frankenstein type result.
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Jamaica
Offline
Posted 6/10/16 , edited 6/10/16
I can understand that at times ethics can hold science back especially in regards to human subjects consenting to clinical trials. One could say that we have millions of homeless and transients why don't scientists simply scoop them up and experiment on them. I mean medical science could make extraordinary progress if this was done, but is that the right thing to do? Is it okay to trample on their human rights just to advance science? In that scenario does the ends justify the means? Do people who have lost their place in society become less than human and turn into guinea pigs?

In another case some behavioral scientists proposed that in order to verify the validity of the phenomenon of feral children we simply take a toddler
and leave them in the wild and see how he/she develops. Would you support such an experiment even if it meant understanding how the human brain develops in the absence of human interaction?
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
Science needs ethics, what it doesn't need is politics.

1227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
I believe that certain aspects of science aren't for the betterment of society, but rather for some individuals to play god. I believe science is simply a process to understand the world around you and for the simple attainment of knowledge. Science is great, but there must be ethics with all things. Scientists are humans and humans have, or at least should have morals. Scientists try to be objective in all things and not let bias inhibit their studies, but certain parts of science teeter on harmful. Would you say the creation of nukes were positive or negative? Would you say that abortion, regardless of whether you are pro life, pro choice, etc was a positive creation? Would any part of science that might have a negative effect be good in nature? The pursuit of all aspects of science would have no problems if scientists could just act like sociopaths and only be concerned with results. I know that science needs to create some of these things due to things such as war and a variety of other thing. Honestly, using science to bring back the dead is unatural. I believe that it would cause more harm than good and it would simply go against the laws of nature. Science is bound by laws like people are bound by laws. Some laws just can't be overcome. The one thing certain in life is death and taxes. To get rid of either would have negative consequences. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and knowledge is power. Power can corrupt. People can always use science for evil. As long as humans are involved with science, then science must contain ethics. If you just want results, let a robot do the experiments, let a sociopath do the experiment. Science like many things can be a double edge sword. Science isn't inherently good, just like people aren't. That is why you can't separate science and ethics.
Posted 6/10/16
If anything else, you can become a mad scientist if you're into that. Learn scientific methods and get funding from some eccentric billionaire, make your fantasy a reality.

nobody said it was easy (that includes me :P)

10596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/10/16

RAfighter wrote:

I can understand that at times ethics can hold science back especially in regards to human subjects consenting to clinical trials. One could say that we have millions of homeless and transients why don't scientists simply scoop them up and experiment on them. I mean medical science could make extraordinary progress if this was done, but is that the right thing to do? Is it okay to trample on their human rights just to advance science? In that scenario does the ends justify the means? Do people who have lost their place in society become less than human and turn into guinea pigs?

In another case some behavioral scientists proposed that in order to verify the validity of the phenomenon of feral children we simply take a toddler
and leave them in the wild and see how he/she develops. Would you support such an experiment even if it meant understanding how the human brain develops in the absence of human interaction?


As to the homeless/transients, they're diseased. You'd have to make them much more well before you could even begin, generally. They'd probably go for it, if you paid them, though.

There have been several "feral children" studies. They mostly didn't work out.
33359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 6/10/16 , edited 6/10/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Science needs ethics, what it doesn't need is politics.



this ^


1 word, Lobotomy
48423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
Human right violations in the name of science are terrible and those who do them should be imprisoned.
10596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/10/16

pandrasb wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:

Science needs ethics, what it doesn't need is politics.



this ^


1 word, Lobotomy


Lobotany? The flowers of the mind are the basis of scientific advancement, though.
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Jamaica
Offline
Posted 6/10/16

gornotck wrote:


RAfighter wrote:

I can understand that at times ethics can hold science back especially in regards to human subjects consenting to clinical trials. One could say that we have millions of homeless and transients why don't scientists simply scoop them up and experiment on them. I mean medical science could make extraordinary progress if this was done, but is that the right thing to do? Is it okay to trample on their human rights just to advance science? In that scenario does the ends justify the means? Do people who have lost their place in society become less than human and turn into guinea pigs?

In another case some behavioral scientists proposed that in order to verify the validity of the phenomenon of feral children we simply take a toddler
and leave them in the wild and see how he/she develops. Would you support such an experiment even if it meant understanding how the human brain develops in the absence of human interaction?


As to the homeless/transients, they're diseased. You'd have to make them much more well before you could even begin, generally. They'd probably go for it, if you paid them, though.

There have been several "feral children" studies. They mostly didn't work out.



True the homeless may be diseased and may even go for experimentation if paid. But paying them would be ethical, furthermore wouldn't it be cheaper to just experiment on them against their will since the money that would be used to pay them could go to the research. Also in the feral children studies no researcher actually put toddlers in the wild or else they would have gone to prison. The studies you mentioned were done to confirm if the claims of feral children were true or not and so far studies have shown the claims to be mostly hoaxes or cases of child abuse.
10596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/10/16

RAfighter wrote:


gornotck wrote:


RAfighter wrote:

I can understand that at times ethics can hold science back especially in regards to human subjects consenting to clinical trials. One could say that we have millions of homeless and transients why don't scientists simply scoop them up and experiment on them. I mean medical science could make extraordinary progress if this was done, but is that the right thing to do? Is it okay to trample on their human rights just to advance science? In that scenario does the ends justify the means? Do people who have lost their place in society become less than human and turn into guinea pigs?

In another case some behavioral scientists proposed that in order to verify the validity of the phenomenon of feral children we simply take a toddler
and leave them in the wild and see how he/she develops. Would you support such an experiment even if it meant understanding how the human brain develops in the absence of human interaction?


As to the homeless/transients, they're diseased. You'd have to make them much more well before you could even begin, generally. They'd probably go for it, if you paid them, though.

There have been several "feral children" studies. They mostly didn't work out.



True the homeless may be diseased and may even go for experimentation if paid. But paying them would be ethical, furthermore wouldn't it be cheaper to just experiment on them against their will since the money that would be used to pay them could go to the research. Also in the feral children studies no researcher actually put toddlers in the wild or else they would have gone to prison. The studies you mentioned were done to confirm if the claims of feral children were true or not and so far studies have shown the claims to be mostly hoaxes or cases of child abuse.


Just paying them is not necessarily ethical, and it may prove more inexpensive to just pay them something than to not pay them and leave that can of worms open.
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 6/10/16
Weapons of mass destruction

Science!
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.