Do you think that scientific investigations need to be ethical ??

**David_Becks17** · 10-06-03, 06:13 PM

This question arrived to my ears some time ago and I am still wandering if scientists need to act with ethic while doing their investigations. I really think that as long as they are aware of their discoveries and the impact they would have on the life of others, they just need to stick to the very basics of ethics. I think that the search for knwoledge has more value and because of this ethic isn't needed.

Please tell me what you think. I would like to hear some of your opinions and thougths

Thanks

David

**sargentlard** · 10-06-03, 06:17 PM

It's a very subjective question. There is no right or wrong answer but more rather and opinion on the topic. There are certain guidelines that are in place and should be in place but the phrase "If you want to make an omelete you have to break a few eggs" also springs to mind when thinking about the issue.

Human testing should be suspended but then again animals don't need anal probing either.

**A Canadian** · 10-06-03, 06:19 PM

good question

presonaly i say trail and error is the key
how do you think penisilean was discovered

**~~spookz~~** · 10-06-03, 06:21 PM

the investigation has to be impartial while the application has to be ethical

"knowledge for knowledge's sake"

**David_Becks17** · 10-06-03, 06:25 PM

I am sorry if I haven't explained myself very clearly . I am a peruvian that doesn't have such a good english but I am always wandering about these things. That's why when I found this site I couldn't stop to look at it. Well what I mean is if ethic and moral need to be consider while doing a scientific investigation (cloning, creation of artificial life..) and if it matters then why does this happens and if ethic is not needed then are we able to say that looking just for knowledge is the only justification that we have??
I hope this helps
David

**fireguy_31** · 10-06-03, 06:26 PM

considering the context you put it in: a scientist with ethics is an oxymoron.

yes! they need to carry out their discoveries with more focus on the possible social ramifications of those discoveries. but, you see, the principles of discovery are void of any acceptance that everything is interconnected. science is based on reductionism, rather than looking at the big picture. hence the saying, "The whole is more than the sum of its parts"

sure scientists will talk of ethics but those ethics are contextualized: within the context of science. they do not encompass social well being, and never will.

**David_Becks17** · 10-06-03, 06:27 PM

but then if the investigation is impartial we can do whatever we want with life............and the final result would be always a thing not accepted by our moral

**fireguy_31** · 10-06-03, 06:29 PM

Fantastic point! KUDOS!

**~~spookz~~** · 10-06-03, 07:06 PM

yah but it breaks down when factoring in the point raised in sarge's post. social and medical research often includes live subjects so ethical considerations have to be taken into acct

**fireguy_31** · 10-06-03, 07:23 PM

perhaps. what i was commending you on was spelling out scientific evidence/ethics in a single sentence.

social and medical research often includes live subjects "so" ethical considerations "have" to be taken into acct

(quotations added)

i think this statement clearly strengthens your earlier point, and sarge's.. Don't you?

**~~spookz~~** · 10-06-03, 07:41 PM

not really. all it indicates is that oversimplifications doesnt always work

**fireguy_31** · 10-07-03, 07:54 AM

okay.

**Teri** · 10-07-03, 08:11 AM

A scientist has to battle his own conscience when making a moral or ethical decision regarding an experiment. I think his own personal code would only allow him to go so far. So I guess it really depends on the person himself (or herself of course).
Am I making sense? it's late.

Cheers
Teri

**storni** · 10-08-03, 02:57 PM

how could you consider the morals of a scientific investigation when you are not sure about its effects?

You have to research some, in some cases, go deep in the research to be able to visualize the effects of scientific work.

Thus, considering ethical issues join science in a later stage just then you can judge it from that point of view, sometimes too late though.

Not from the beginning, its not very feasible is it? Why restrict something with unknown effects? But then, why promote it? Its paradoxical. My answer then would be for the sake of knowledge.

Cheers David

**cosmictraveler** · 10-08-03, 05:00 PM

With the advent of supercomputers today many experiments can be "safely" done in the virtual world. That being said all other "scientific investigations" should be held to high ethical standards.

**Dinosaur** · 10-14-03, 10:43 PM

Scientific methods should be subjected to ethical considerations, but the quest for scientific truths has nothing to do with ethics.

For example, suppose some researcher wants to know the effects of slicing out part of a human brain. He certainly has no right to kidnap somebody and operate on him. I do not think it would be ethical for him to take advantage of some nut willing to volunteer for experimental brain surgery. However, I see nothing wrong with the scientist analyzing people who survived accidental brain injuries or who survived being shot in the head. This is done all the time to learn about brain function.

The methods used to obtain knowledge and the applications of scientific knowledge can be ethical or unethical. I do not believe that any knowledge should be forbidden to a scientist.

I always hated the Frankenstein novel for the implications about forbidden knowledge.

**~~spookz~~** · 10-14-03, 10:54 PM

death row inmate volunteers
relatives compensated
what say you?

**sargentlard** · 10-14-03, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by spookz
death row inmate volunteers
relatives compensated
what say you?

Half of those poor souls are wrongly convicted it seems, even if such isn't the occurence then still.

That sort of becomes a human trade. Pay the family and fry the menace fuck...who cares right? He's only a burden on society right? Better him then some innocent animal right?

It all comes down to the value you place on human life vs animal life. Using the excuse of overbearing "evil" on the inamtes soul as his dammening is downright pathetic. Placing human life on a mantle and solely killing rhe animals for a better cause isn't too attractive either.

PETA VS The humane society....*ding ding* Let's get it on

the investigation has to be impartial while the application has to be ethical

This wowed me at first and then it hit me. How oversimplfied this statement is.