I have read articles from respected sources talking about a proposal for international science police. Their job would be to aprove all scientific research before it takes place and stop illegal research from happening. This sounds just like what many horible dictatorships have done in the past like Germany in WWII. What do you think of this, aren't you afraid if it happens the power will be abused like the home land security act can be? It is saposed to help protect us from terrorism, but so often the science community cries out against good research saying it isn't science or man was not ment to go to the moon, it is against gods will etc.. and it changes the world for the better after it is done. If the science police regulate it will be like an inquisition into new science, just like the church did at the very beginning.
Well, in effect this happens already. To do research you have to secure funding - and that funding has to be approved by a committee of politians, advisors, 'respected' scientists, etc. It is, in fact, self-policing, for good or bad. Ron.
Well why not? What if someone is 'testing' the affects of hammering nails into dolphins? You can't just do what you want and mask it as 'research'.
So you are against animal expirimentation? That is very noble of you... If it is just the Dolphin example you are against that is already a crime called animal cruelty, it has nothing to do with the research. So your example doesn't work for me, but I still see your point. What if someone is researching a new way to kill people? Purhaps a disease that can't be detected or cured, spreads through the air and kills in a matter of hours. Surely this kind of research shouldn't be allowed? But where do you draw the line, and if that kind of research is possible surely the govornments the Science Police work for will develope these technologys and classify them so they can't get in the hands of terrorists. American cryptography technology is illegal to export and the govornment wants to put tighter controls on what level of cryptography the citizens are allowed to use. What if they made cryptography research illegal if it was too powerfull of a algorithm? In the wrong hands cryptography can let the bad guys transmit information without anyone knowing about it, but at the same time it can protect honest people from the bad guys and protect their privacy. Any new technology or science cann be used for good or for evil and terrorists can take advantage of it. If they are just going to make research illegal that terrorists can abuse then we won't have hardly any research at all. If someone was developing a source for near free energy, it could be used to power the terrorists weapons of mass destruction or whatever. Should the research of airplanes have been made illegal sense terrorists used them to attack us on 9/11? Or should the research of handguns have been made illegal sense terrorists use them to shoot people?
I am not the one proposing this, but purhaps it would be 'secret police'. I am strongly against limitations of scientific research.
Who is proposing this police force??. The UN, USA ??. And enforcing what law??? Could the ref (link) to the proposal be posted please??
To some extent scientists can help to regulate themselves . Often research is fraudulent or unscrupulous . Motivation for unethical scientific behavior is always about power and profit . The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has investigated numerous incidents of misconduct and outright fabrication . http://ori.dhhs.gov An International science police would however be objectionable to many countries because it could lead to where their sovereignty is replaced by international mob rule . At the same time , the horrible experiments conducted by Nazi doctors ( many of whom where brought into the US during the late 40's and early 50's to continue their "research" ) is a reminder that accountablity is essential . People like Dr. Ewen Cameron , with his torture chambers and MKULTRA related agendas should fill every decent person with apprehension . He used chemical induced comas , acute mental pain and manipulation in an effort to control "patients" . The justification was claimed to be national security , but actually it was to manufacture controlled assassins . Encouraging knowledgeable people to come foward and disclose the nature of and participants engaged in "scientific transgressions", an international fund could be organized to reward them .
My basic objection to science police is that the proposed police are always bureaucrats, religious types, or politicians. It might not be too bad if scientists did the policing. In the last 300-500 years, scientists have done a pretty good job of picking worthwhile projects. I trust scientists far more than I trust politicians or bureaucrats. Current legislation about cloning and partial birth abortion are good examples of politicians and bureaucrats doing a bad job. I do not want to argue for or against abortion. I want to point out that no matter how you feel about abortion, banning a particular technique is nonsense. It might make sense to ban abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy, but as long as abortion is legal, a doctor should decide how to do it. Allowing politicians or bureaucrats the authority to choose medical methodology is insane. As for cloning research, what is so terrible about creating a twin? I suspect that people are afraid that clones will be used for spare parts. We do not permit the taking of organs from an ordinary person without his/her consent. Even with consent, no doctor would take the heart out of a healthy person to save somebody with a failing heart. Why expect society or the medical establishment to view a clone as some how sub human? It would have all the characteristics of a human. I think cloning research has a fair chance of providing a methodology allowing the growing of a human organ using DNA from the person requiring the organ. If they could tinker one of my cells into becoming a kidney, lung, or pancreas necessary for my survival, I would think it was a great idea. If the same research happened to allow the creation of a child for an infertile couple, why not? I suspect that the objection to cloning research comes from mystical beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of souls for the clone. If it took 20 tries for an infertile couple to get a cloned child, would the loss of 19 stomach cells be so terrible? Are the objectors worried that the 19 stomach cells had souls which got destroyed? Are they afraid that the clone has no soul? Let scientists do whatever they can get funded, and do not worry about them. They have given us lots of reasons to be happy with what they do, and few reasons to regret what they do. Can anybody say the same for our politicians and bureaucrats? Please do not give me some outraged comments about the weapons that scientists have created. Left to themselves, they create medical technology, labor saving appliances, computers, cars, advances in human knowledge, et cetera. It is the politicians that encourage them to make weapons. If politicians decide what science is allowable, do you think they will stop making weapons?
Dinosaur - I'm sure you're right that politicians are no better than scientists at making decisions. That is mostly because we elect people who are good at politics rather than good at making decisions. If you think all scientific innovations should be adopted willy-nilly, that we can trust scientists to make good decisions, and that we few reasons to regret what scienctists do then you need to get out more. Scientists do what their funders direct them to do. Those funders are politicians and industrialists. Science as saviour is a view belonging to the 18th Century. The narrow specialisation of thinking required of scientists these days almost ensures that scientists, with the exception of the most thoughtful of them, are the worst people at making decisions affecting the evolution of human society.
Canute: If you think scientists are bad at deciding what research to pursue, who would you propose as the science police? You say I should get out more? In over 45 years as a programmer, I got involved with a lot of scientists, engineers, linguists, and other science types. I also got involved with some government contract work. I have been out there. You should not use fallacious arguments like the ad hominem one suggesting that I am naive about the world. How about some valid arguments? BTW: You also used another fallacious argument called the Straw Man technique. I never claimed that scientists were good at making decisions effecting how society should evolve. I do not think anybody is good at that, because our society is too complex. You put those silly words in my mouth. I only said that scientists are good at deciding what research to pursue. Society seems to evolve without anybody directing it. I think you should try to develop better insight into hoaw bad politicians and bureaucrats are at managing anything. The forte of the politician is winning elections. That is their only goal, other than the perks and money they make once they get voted into office. Scientists in the academic community generally choose the research they want to pursue and then apply to various places for the funds. It is scientists who are employees of corporations (like the pharmaceuticals) who are directed by those with the money. Consider the funding obtained by physicists using the particle accelerators. Consider the SETI project. Consider the experiments by Bell and others working with quantum weirdness. Consider Hawking and the men who were supported while working on proofs of the 4-color problem, the Fermat theorem, and the Poincare conjecture. These lines of research were not directed by those with the money. The funders had little understanding of these projects. I am sure there are lots of other examples. BTW: What is so terrible about a pharmaceutical company telling employees what diseases should be researched? Even in that environment, I would expect some give and take between what the executives want and what the researchers think is feasible.
I don't propose anybody. Policing science would be impossible. I didn't mean to offend. IMO to think that scientists would make better decisions about our future than politicians or beaurocrats is naive. I'm not saying that politicians are much good at it either, being so short term in their thinking, but scientists are generally caught up in some increasingly passe Utopian technological view of the future, in which of course the practice of science will be the most worthwhile human activity, which is not where I want to go. You said "I trust scientists far more than I trust politicians or bureaucrats" in regard to policing science. If you think that 'policing' just means controlling the choice of research project then fair enough (and that's policed already) but that isn't what you actually wrote, which is all I could go on. I have as much insight into the ineptitude and short sightedness of politicians as I would ever hope for. My very point. True enough. But to think that these are the only scientists who are so directed is (IMO) to miss the bigger picture. Money pays for science and it is paid over for whatever reasons the people with the money happen to have. Exceptions, even if these are such, sometimes prove the rule. Also these projects were all funded for a purpose. I doubt that the purposes of the funders coincided with those of the scientists who took part, and uiltmately the funders decided whether these projects should go ahead, not the scientists. True enough. It is the corporations that decide, albeit on the basis of technical advice. They will do whatever might make money. None of them are making decisions based on other considerations as far as one can tell. PS - I retract my 'get out more' comment with an apology. It was unnecessary - (but only meant light-heartedly).
