 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I strongly disagree. Scientist *do* need to keep an eye on how their research might be used. They *do* need to be concerned about its implications. Being aware helps them know wether they want to proceed or not as well as know what security measures need to be used.
In addition, ethicists are a benefit to society. The average ethicist thinks a lot more about morality than the average person, and society can benefit from that extra critical thinking.
Lastly, I find it a bit ironic that you say you don't want people telling you what your ethics are, but your stance is that you are saying scientists should have no concerns for the ethical implications of their research.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thucydides
I think it's usually the rest of populance that's usually worried about the ethical implications of new technology. Most scientists are too involved with making stuff work to be concerned whether it will destroy the planet or not. However, when scientists become spokesmans and public figures, they usually have to bridge the gap with the rest of the populance and use ethical consideration of research to do so. |
Yep, that´s it.
In Germany for example it aren´t the scientists who are against stem cell research. In fact they would do it if they were allowed to.
It´s the public which doesn´t want this research to be performed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's more an exhibit of lack of ethics. |
Ergo, why there needs to be ethics in science.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Josef Mengele was a paragon of scientific progress wasn't he, Kuci? |
That wasn't him. It was his twin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We just watched a video in DNA Science, and I must say: yes, the atomic bomb killed people. Shut up and deal. We don't need to hear about the "ethical implications" every single frigging time you discover some new gene or whatever! I'm sick of their fetish with figuring out ways their research could cause millions of deaths or - god forbid - an ethical dilemma about genetic engineering. Just like the same dilemma last week. |
...I think you missed the point. The atomic bomb is still killing people and will continue to do so when you and I are maggot food.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Also, I think professional "bioethicists" are leeches and a complete waste of society's resources. They should be shot on sight. (This goes for any ethicist, for that matter; I don't need to pay someone to tell me what my ethics are, thank you very much.) |
Read my reply and ask yourself the question again. I think the point they were making is that a science decision can have implications 1,000s (yes, thousands) of years down the road.
Is it really so evil to try and make people think, rather than following the herd?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:19
|
|
Meh. A spork, if misused, could kill people. The thing about the bomb is that it's remarkably good not only at killing people, but at leaving large traces of death hovering in the air and soil for decades so that future generations can enjoy its malevolence in the form of birth defects and radiation poisoning. Thanks to the unpredictability and randomness of the winds which spread fallout, people who are not involved in your conflict, and who might not even be aware that either side of that conflict even exists, can waste away and die just like your most bitter enemies. Well, except that your most bitter enemies were probably instantly converted into a pile of fine ash at ground zero, the lucky sons of *****es. The atomic bomb is a pinnacle in humanity's capacity for wanton and pointless destruction.
My grandfather was one of the men who first urged the U.S. Government to begin research on nuclear fission. He was also one of the men who later argued against dropping the bomb on Japan. He had to make a difficult decision to weigh of the potential of his decision to either help or harm the human race. When the research started, nobody could guess the sheer destructive fury a nuclear reaction can unleash. My grandfather may have later regretted his early support, though I don't know since he died around the time I was born. The important thing is, if science is explored and funded for the sake of applied technology-the ways one's discovery might be helpful to others-failing to think about how the discovery might also harm others is an example of very narrow and delusional thinking at best. At worst it's just cold-blooded callous hypocrisy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
Kuci, you're still in high school. If you hate learning and hearing about ethics all the time, don't go to University.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2004 20:15
|