Ethics of Science?
MMAPlayground.com »
Off Topic »
The Locker Room »
Ethics of Science?
JewJitsu
6/29/07 9:05:39PM
Is it necessarily about the ethics implemented during the actual experiment/research or is it more about the ethics used in implementing said results to society?
richieb19
6/29/07 9:06:27PM
I farted
fedorwins1
6/29/07 9:15:52PM
Posted by richieb19
I farted
yea same here I had baked beans
richieb19
6/29/07 9:16:50PM
In all seriousness though JJ, I'm not really understanding your question...
JewJitsu
6/29/07 9:21:57PM
Posted by richieb19
In all seriousness though JJ, I'm not really understanding your question...
The question is, how do you define the ethics of science.
Do you put more value in how ethics play into the actual experimentation/research of scientific advancements or do you place the overall ethical evaluation of said experimentation/research in how the results are delivered to the general public.
richieb19
6/29/07 9:23:21PM
A good example would be cloning?
Posted by JewJitsu
The question is, how do you define the ethics of science.
Do you put more value in how ethics play into the actual experimentation/research of scientific advancements or do you place the overall ethical evaluation of said experimentation/research in how the results are delivered to the general public.
JewJitsu
6/29/07 9:28:14PM
It is all personal opinion.
Ex: Some find the fact that some scientists use animals in their testing as unethical.
I am going to change the question from what was originally intended.
Here is the new question:
If we had a modern breakthrough in medicine or an achievement in science but we used unethical means to obtain them, do you think they should be rebuked or should we just accept them due to the implications they have on the future of society as a whole.
Ex: Some find the fact that some scientists use animals in their testing as unethical.
I am going to change the question from what was originally intended.
Here is the new question:
If we had a modern breakthrough in medicine or an achievement in science but we used unethical means to obtain them, do you think they should be rebuked or should we just accept them due to the implications they have on the future of society as a whole.
jdubs
6/29/07 10:54:30PM
damn it jewjitsu this is mmaplayground not popular science
JewJitsu
6/29/07 11:14:51PM
Posted by jdubs
damn it jewjitsu this is mmaplayground not popular science
I understand that, but this is also "The Locker Room" which as I understand it is reserved for "off topic" discussion.
richieb19
6/29/07 11:24:34PM
My opinion on this is what do you consider ethical to begin with? I mean as odd as it sounds we breed millions upon millions of cattle to be butchered for food, and thats all well and good, yet at the same time it's ethically wrong to clone a cow, or use shampoo on a rabbit? The line between good and evil is often stretched when economical needs are not met, and people often don't want to realize that hurting one thing to help countless others is a necessary evil of the world. Scientific research is always being done, whether it be funded or not, and more often than not is covered from the public eye so that these ethical debates do not arise.
greshamfighter
6/30/07 12:30:02AM
I support embryonic stem cell research so according to George W I'm unethical.
loller90278
6/30/07 5:07:50AM
in other news, they have found a possible cure for hiv. it was on yahoo new
Rush
6/30/07 8:32:30AM
I can answer your question, hopefully enough to satisfy.
First off, I am a Ph.D. in the faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. So I do know more about research than the average person.
1. With regards to research with animals, there are few limits as to what the scientific community would criticize just general research, let alone an important breakthrough.
2. Most ethical questions come into play when 'humans' are involved. i.e. stem cell research and human testing. Many of these issues are currently dealt with by the law.
Many of the people that make the laws have no understanding of the science involved.
As to whether a breakthrough would change people's minds about 'unethical' testing/research.... This is where we see the hypocrisy of humans. This really boils down to the individual. I'm sure there are lots of vegetarians out there that are against the cruelty of animals, but would not think twice of taking advantage of medication or immunizations that came at the expense of years of animal testing. In this sense, I think it is like war. If a country went to war, but it turned out that that war saved an entire country from the brink of destruction, then I'm sure a lot of people would overlook the means to save the country, but it will forever be in debate.
Personally, I would say that science does question the ethics or methods of research if something bad happens. For example, the design of polio vaccines. It is widely argued that certain methods used to create a polio vaccine back in Congo, led to the emergence of HIV (or AIDS). This had less to do with the ethics of animal use, but more about the ethics of scientific procedure (whether proceeding or not even though you are aware of dire consequences.)
There are ethicists in science and that is their full time job. I never did take an ethics course, so I cannot help you beyond this, unless you have more specific science related questions.
First off, I am a Ph.D. in the faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. So I do know more about research than the average person.
1. With regards to research with animals, there are few limits as to what the scientific community would criticize just general research, let alone an important breakthrough.
2. Most ethical questions come into play when 'humans' are involved. i.e. stem cell research and human testing. Many of these issues are currently dealt with by the law.
Many of the people that make the laws have no understanding of the science involved.As to whether a breakthrough would change people's minds about 'unethical' testing/research.... This is where we see the hypocrisy of humans. This really boils down to the individual. I'm sure there are lots of vegetarians out there that are against the cruelty of animals, but would not think twice of taking advantage of medication or immunizations that came at the expense of years of animal testing. In this sense, I think it is like war. If a country went to war, but it turned out that that war saved an entire country from the brink of destruction, then I'm sure a lot of people would overlook the means to save the country, but it will forever be in debate.
Personally, I would say that science does question the ethics or methods of research if something bad happens. For example, the design of polio vaccines. It is widely argued that certain methods used to create a polio vaccine back in Congo, led to the emergence of HIV (or AIDS). This had less to do with the ethics of animal use, but more about the ethics of scientific procedure (whether proceeding or not even though you are aware of dire consequences.)
There are ethicists in science and that is their full time job. I never did take an ethics course, so I cannot help you beyond this, unless you have more specific science related questions.
Rush
6/30/07 8:39:03AM
I do want to say that ethics doesn't seem to be a hot topic with scientists right now. Funding is a more pressing issue that tends to be discussed over beer and food at conferences right now.