What does this phrase mean to you?

Is it the ethics of the scientific process itself, or the ethical implications of scientific research to society?

Why?

The statement suggests scientific research is unethical. Which makes no sense, so I'm going to take out of this, don't crash test cars using real people. What is an ethical method of testing project X or Y.

The phrase means nothing until you define 'ethics.'

The phrase means nothing until you define 'ethics.'

I'm asking you to define it as you see it.

I'm asking you to define it as you see it.

Other than harming human beings who don't want to be harmed is pretty much it.

Other than harming human beings who don't want to be harmed is pretty much it.

So you see the ethics of scientific research as implying its consequences to society?

So you see the ethics of scientific research as implying its consequences to society?

Is that what I said, or is that what you thought I said?

Is that what I said, or is that what you thought I said?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking for a clarification.

I don't know, which is why I'm asking for a clarification.

What's to clarify? It's really quite simple.

I give up.

I give up.

Ok, but you do need to define 'ethics' before moving on.

Thats why I am asking the question: is ethics related to the process, or to the consequences?

The problem here is in the definition of 'ethics.' Your ethics, for example, could be driven by Islamic superstitions while another's ethics might be driven by Christian superstitions. The ethics of someone not driven by superstitions could be entirely different.

The problem here is in the definition of 'ethics.' Your ethics, for example, could be driven by Islamic superstitions while another's ethics might be driven by Christian superstitions. The ethics of someone not driven by superstitions could be entirely different.

We're talking about the ethics of scientific research, not religion. Consider them divorced.

Oh, I see, you don't know the definition of ethics:

Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.

Now, do you understand why you need to define 'ethics?'

Oh, I see, you don't know the definition of ethics:

Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.

Now, do you understand why you need to define 'ethics?'

I'm glad you defined it. Perhaps we can now move ahead.

When you say right or wrong in scientific research is it the process or consequences that concern you?

I'm glad you defined it. Perhaps we can now move ahead.

When you say right or wrong in scientific research is it the process or consequences that concern you?

Look back to my second post here.

Look back to my second post here.

Thank you. http://www.rohitab.com/discuss/style_emoticons/default/axehead.png

What does this phrase mean to you?

Is it the ethics of the scientific process itself, or the ethical implications of scientific research to society?

Why?
From my perspective, the scientific process itself is an ethically neutral concept. Just like the process for making bicycle tires.

There are internal scientific ethics, for instance, that deal with not faking results and not torturing people and such.

And then there are the ethics of the use of scientific discoveries in society. This is really not a question (IMO) for science or scientists (as opposed to engineers and technicians or scientists acting in either of those roles). That's for elected policy makers and the voting public to decide.

Yay, a discussion!
From my perspective, the scientific process itself is an ethically neutral concept. Just like the process for making bicycle tires.

Ok


Why if you say this:

There are internal scientific ethics, for instance, that deal with not faking results and not torturing people and such.

Do you also say this:


And then there are the ethics of the use of scientific discoveries in society. This is really not a question (IMO) for science or scientists (as opposed to engineers and technicians or scientists acting in either of those roles). That's for elected policy makers and the voting public to decide.

Where does one draw the line? How?

Yay, a discussion!

When I say:

There are internal scientific ethics, for instance, that deal with not faking results and not torturing people and such.

I'm talking about within the scientific community. The ethics used here probably should be the same as those used in society at large. Yes?


Where does one draw the line? How?

I see your point. If you shouldn't cheat or lie in general, why should there be any difference, right?

I'm talking about within the scientific community. The ethics used here probably should be the same as those used in society at large. Yes?



You mean, do no harm? What about criminals, terrorists, etc?


I see your point. If you shouldn't cheat or lie in general, why should there be any difference, right?


A pacifist working on a bomb - is that an oxymoron or a necessity of the times?

Yay, a discussion!

Sam, what is your problem? Don't you understand that the ethics of scientific research need to be clearly defined. One need only look to stem cell research to understand how the Abrahamic religions are a powerful driver when it comes to what is right and wrong?

Really sam, stop being so dense.

Sam, what is your problem? Don't you understand that the ethics of scientific research need to be clearly defined. One need only look to stem cell research to understand how the Abrahamic religions are a powerful driver when it comes to what is right and wrong?

Really sam, stop being so dense.

Unless you are secretly a fundamentalist Christian, that should not define your opinion of the ethics of scientific research; any definition I give would reflect my view point, I already know what that is, I want to know how others see the same issue, to clarify my own definition of the term.

Its what is known as an open ended question, to generate more viewpoints.

http://www.mediacollege.com/journalism/interviews/open-ended-questions.html

My personal ethics on scientific research is to not harm those who don't want to be harmed. Simple really.

The ethics of a Christian and a Muslim will be entirely different from mine and from each other.

And since Christians and Muslims define their ethics through myths and superstitions, we can only imagine (as they do) their viewpoints, which will range widely dependent on how fundamental their beliefs.

Really sam, you should be spanked.

War's absolutely brilliant, it really gets the creative juices flowing:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Technology/story?id=1796227

There's a new product in development that could change your nightly ritual forever.

The Wrigley Gum Company has paired up with the U.S. military to create an anti-bacterial chewing gum that actually cleans teeth so soldiers wouldn't have to stop what they're doing to brush their pearly whites.

If the military signs on to it, there's a good chance it will end up in your medicine cabinet one day.

When a military engineer patented the first crude steam engine when Americans were pushing west into the frontier, the trend of military inventions going mainstream began.

From trains to planes: The military's stealth jet technology may be on your feet. Many hiking boots are made from the same materials.

The "trench coat" got its name from soldiers in World War I who wore the military jackets in the trenches.

The microwave oven also was built with military technology.


Another military innovation can mean the difference between life and death -- the Medevac helicopter, pioneered during the Korean War.

The Hummer started out as the Humvee during the Persian Gulf War. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif. was the first civilian to own one.

But the mother of all military inventions is what one Pentagon official dubbed the "Intergalactic Network." That wild idea became the Internet -- undoubtedly the one military invention that changed our world the most.
Top Ten Inventions for 2003
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/a/arinventions.htm


WASHINGTON -- Ten teams will be recognized June 23 by the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command for the “Greatest Army Inventions” of the past year.
The winning inventions include a zinc-air battery, life-saving medical equipment, the first antipersonnel round for the Abrams tank and camera equipment to inspect caves.
Would we be better off without anti-bacterial chewing gum, all-weather materials, the steam engine, microwave ovens, medical helicopters and life-saving medical equipment? Would we be better off without the internet? Discuss. ;)

My personal ethics on scientific research is to not harm those who don't want to be harmed. Simple really.

This too can be further defined, in that there are those who place their lives at risk for scientific research, and are lauded for it. Those who died in the shuttle disasters knew the risks, for example.

War's absolutely brilliant, it really gets the creative juices flowing:


Would we be better off without anti-bacterial chewing gum, all-weather materials, the steam engine, microwave ovens, medical helicopters and life-saving medical equipment? Would we be better off without the internet? Discuss. ;)

So, in your opinion, creativity is related to a sense of insecurity and fear/aggression. Happy people are not inventive?

That is an interesting viewpoint. So how do you define ethics in scientific research. Mr SIUPs?

This too can be further defined, in that there are those who place their lives at risk for scientific research, and are lauded for it. Those who died in the shuttle disasters knew the risks, for example.

That goes for people who are willing to try experimental drugs too, in clinical trials on humans for instance.

You mean, do no harm? What about criminals, terrorists, etc?

Don't understand this question.

A pacifist working on a bomb - is that an oxymoron or a necessity of the times?
A true pacifist? Yes. He/She should refuse to work on weapons of any kind since a true pacifist (i.e. idiot) would stand by while his country was ransacked by invaders. I would use tham as cannon fodder.

But building weapons has been a necessity of all times. We need to not drift off into la-la land here. Humans have strong warlike tendencies along with all of our other good and bad tendencies. Groups and individual humans must always be prepared to defend themselves and if required (for dwindling resources say) attack. Simple facts of existence.

You're here sam because at least some of your genetic forebears didn't let themselves quietly die off from starvation. They invaded a neighboring territory and acquired what they needed. Simple.

So, in your opinion, creativity is related to a sense of insecurity and fear/aggression. Happy people are not inventive?

Not nearly as much. "Necessity is the mother of invention". Content people generally don't need to work hard to create useful new things.

So why talk about ethics at all?

So why talk about ethics at all?
Because under "civil" conditions, when everything is okey-dokey we like to think that we're more polite than we really are. If times are good, everyone wants to be comfortable so cooperation and "ethics" keeps things nice. Advanced ethics are a purely human invention.

Because under "civil" conditions, when everything is okey-dokey we like to think that we're more polite than we really are. If times are good, everyone wants to be comfortable so cooperation and "ethics" keeps things nice. Advanced ethics are a purely human invention.

So basically we are all wolves in sheep's clothing, waiting for that opportunity to have it all?

So, in your opinion, creativity is related to a sense of insecurity and fear/aggression. Happy people are not inventive?

That is an interesting viewpoint. So how do you define ethics in scientific research. Mr SIUPs?
Pff. Trolled.

I suppose my view is that what you neatly box off and label as 'scientific research' is actually, in reality, a tangled web of science, finance and politics, each exerting pressures on the other so that no-one involved knows their right from their wrong any more. What's the clear-eyed, 'ethically sound' (:confused:) scientist to do when he realises that the laser research he's been working on these past few years is part of some grand plan to level cities in some country 10,000 miles away? What if he even knew it from the start? Mortgages need paying. Kids need feeding. Wives need furs. He's one small cog in a very big wheel and, if he doesn't do it, no doubt his replacement will spare him some change when he passes him on the street next.

Old World War II song:

She's the girl that makes the thing
That drills the hole that hold the spring
That drives the rod that turns the knob
That works the thingummybob
She's the girl that makes the thing
That hold the oil that oils the ring
That takes the shank that moves the crank
That works the thingummybob.
It's a ticklish sort of job making a thing for a thingummybob
Especially when you don't know what it's for.
But it's the girl that makes the thing
That drills the hole that holds the spring
That works the thingummybob that makes the engine roar
But it's the girl that makes the thing
That holds the oil that oils the ring
That makes the thingummybob that's going to win the war.
Oh, and it's not my job to define ethics. Your thread. Your rod. Your back.

Pff. Trolled.

I suppose my view is that what you neatly box off and label as 'scientific research' is actually, in reality, a tangled web of science, finance and politics, each exerting pressures on the other so that no-one involved knows their riight from their wrong any more. What's the clear-eyed, 'ethically sound' (:confused:) scientist to do when he realises that the laser research he's been working on these past few years is part of some grand plan to level cities in some country 10,000 miles away? What if he even knew it from the start? Mortgages need paying. Kids need feeding. Wives need furs. He's one small cog in a very big wheel and, if he doesn't do it, no doubt his replacement will spare him some change when he passes him on the street next.

Old World War II song:

Oh, and it's not my job to define ethics. Your thread. Your rod. Your back.

Its that clear eyed scientist, that financier and that politician I'm addressing. How do they define ethics in scientific research. Thats why I'm keeping it open to interpretation.:)

I agree with all your viewpoints btw (as usual).

If we don't/can't even agree with what ethics in science means, who can determine or assess it?

So why talk about ethics at all?

They need to talked about. Someone like sandy, for example, has ethics that are driven entirely by the bible, or some such other superstitious nonsense. She is perfectly willing to do great harm to others in that pursuit. Should we allow her deranged and deluded set of ethics decide scientific research?

They need to talked about. Someone like sandy, for example, has ethics that are driven entirely by the bible, or some such other superstitious nonsense. She is perfectly willing to do great harm to others in that pursuit. Should we allow her deranged and deluded set of ethics decide scientific research?

So who determines the validity of an ethical viewpoint in science? You, me, who? And by what yardstick?

So who determines the validity of an ethical viewpoint in science? You, me, who? And by what yardstick?

Clearly, religion MUST be divorced from science, as you mentioned before. That said, we go right back to not doing harm to those who don't want harm done to them.

Unfortunately, the reality of it is something entirely different, as religious beliefs DO determine what is ethical and what is not when it comes to scientific research. Scientists need funding, many politicians who control the purse strings are theists.

Nuff said.

Thats why I am asking the question: is ethics related to the process, or to the consequences?

It's related to the thinkeable consequences of a process.

What does this phrase mean to you?

Is it the ethics of the scientific process itself, or the ethical implications of scientific research to society?

Why?
it's both.
it's unethical for science to do research into human longevity and highly unethical to apply that research to humans.

there are plenty others.

it's both.
it's unethical for science to do research into human longevity and highly unethical to apply that research to humans.



HUh? Why?

HUh? Why?
let's hear your argument first.

let's hear your argument first.
Argument? What argument? I asked you why you said what you did.

Argument? What argument? I asked you why you said what you did.
and i ask you to explain why it shouldn't be so.

and i ask you to explain why it shouldn't be so.
I refuse on grounds that you are being a pain in the ass.

What does this phrase mean to you?

Is it the ethics of the scientific process itself, or the ethical implications of scientific research to society?

Why?

I believe the implications determine the conflict, rather than the process itself.

However, I also think the "scientific process itself" has zero ethical value as a whole. Therefore, the "ethical implications of scientific research" may need an alternative comparator, if only for the sake of the question.

I refuse on grounds that you are being a pain in the ass.
okay.

I refuse on grounds that you are being a pain in the ass.

There are reasons for that.:p
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1432268&highlight=quit%21#post1432268

There are reasons for that.:p
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1432268&highlight=quit%21#post1432268

Right...

The problem here is in the definition of 'ethics.' Your ethics, for example, could be driven by Islamic superstitions while another's ethics might be driven by Christian superstitions. The ethics of someone not driven by superstitions could be entirely different.

This is a good point. You are inferring that ethics is different for each religion, which is quite right. Every religion has its goals and the morals is the means to the ends or goals. It is how the people in the society need to operate on order to, they think, acheve the common goals. Islam is "paradise" and, believe it or not, "the Return of Christ" who they think will then explain that Mohammed was right. Christianity has its goal of Heaven and their different version of the "Return" and followed by the Millenium.

Our secular system has no agreed upon moral formula or code so much of the scientific method is based on "the Christian ethic." That worked well, but now that our society is so divided and our secular ideals so weakened by our failure to "bring democracy" to Islam that even the Methodoly of Science is in danger of breaking down if it is not already doing so.

charles,