tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post1858703046626327850..comments2009-05-18T12:46:47.580-07:00Comments on Ethics in Science: Seed magazine...heard of it?Matthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09406323176431313733noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post-58552850400349882362009-01-31T11:11:00.000-08:002009-01-31T11:11:00.000-08:00Justin Wrote: I can see the day coming when the “C...Justin Wrote: <I>I can see the day coming when the “Can we?” question must be replaced by the “Should we?” question.</I><BR/><BR/>It seems to me that we're WAY past that day. Think about game-changing research like the <A HREF="http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/" REL="nofollow">Manhattan Project</A>. I'm not saying that, given the political situation, we SHOULDN'T have engaged in this this research; just that the obvious significance of the knowledge gained and its application raised clear questions of whether to get this knowledge.<BR/><BR/>But you're right that it seems to be increasingly <I>recognized</I> that questions about the potential uses of scientific knowledge raises difficult ethical questions.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406323176431313733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5672016593834701391.post-578901096120696682009-01-29T17:38:00.000-08:002009-01-29T17:38:00.000-08:00Interesting thoughts... In response to your questi...Interesting thoughts... In response to your question concerning the idea that science "must progress" or "must overcome some barriers"... It seems that the general understanding in science over the last few centuries is that "if we can, we should." In other words, the simple fact that we have the capability or ingenuity to study a certain area of the natural world or invent some technology is worthy and sufficient motivation to engage in that research. If we CAN send a man to the moon, then we WILL send a man to the moon. If we CAN split the atom, then we WILL split the atom. If we CAN sequence the human genome, then we WILL sequence the human genome.<BR/><BR/> I can see the day coming when the “Can we?” question must be replaced by the “Should we?” question. Instead of asking, “Can we clone a human being?” we need to be asking “Should we clone a human being?” Science loves to ask the first question, it loves to push the boundaries of human knowledge and capability. It is not so adept at asking the second question, because this question involves imposing limits on yourself, your own research and your own curiosity. It’s not natural.<BR/><BR/> I think that this ethical “should we?” question is going to be seen as a barrier in the scientific community and those who are advocating this approach will face some hostility in our current scientific culture. But, this is the question that must be asked. In fact, this needs to be the primary question that individual scientists must ask themselves in regards to their own research areas. Because of the exponentially increasing power of our scientific capability, this paradigm shift is going to be necessary to ensure the continued fulfillment if not survival of our culture.<BR/>Just a thought...open to clarification or objection.Justin Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10072921564949072687noreply@blogger.com