So if a scientist knew that antibiotics could someday be overused, with all the problem that has brought, is he morally obligated to not develop them - thereby condemning millions of people to death?
Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
The ''overuse'' wouldn't be the fault of the scientist or science, though...but, you know that, billvon. I think you were onto something with your James Watt example. Yet, how could anyone have ever predicted the global warming problems that we are experiencing today...then? Should they have?
How ethically responsible should we hold science and scientists, in your view?
Not realizing it when I posted this thread, I suppose one could become anti-science because he/she feels that scientists shouldn't pursue progress at the risk of ethics.
I rest my case.
It's a bit like this...
I invent a genetically tagged gas, I call it CFB, I put in a bottle and tell you that if you open the bottle and breath in the CFB, it will give you perfect health and immortality (it's not a scam), but I declare I have absolutely no idea what will happen to any one else.
Do you take the gas and use it any how?
Do you take the gas to find out what will happen to every one else including every one you care about?
What wisdom would you make use of?
You take the gas and turn into a person who only gains good health and immortality by vamping of every one around you. Every one near you dies horribly so you can have perfect health and immortality.
So,
I discover a gas for refrigeration I offer it to a demanding world,
I fail to test it's environmental impact thoroughly
I take a chance a risk.
I fail to acknowledge the limitations of my own knowledge.
I release the gas to the commodities market any how.
People love it, they trust me, they believe I know what I am doing...
They think I am so clever.
I make an awful lot of money and feed millions through philanthropic humanitarian activities. I am a good guy, I am a great guy..
Then one day they find out that I wasn't able to be trusted like they thought, that I had manipulated and capitalized on human greed and suffering and my unwise use of science created a situation that cost millions of people their lives in the form of Skin cancers and will continue to cost human lives due to my ignorance and betrayal of trust.
The world then spends trillions of dollars and huge resources attempting to remove those CFC's from, mass circulation and even now don't know if they will ever be successful at restoring the Ozone layer.
But then I go on to discover better treatments for skin cancer and I am a good guy again...
And that is just one example of unwise science...
Can you think of any?
Is there a pet "unwise science" grudge you hold?
Are you a pro nuclear bomb person?
I bet you can't think of any unwise science, because you know I am right and are too busy attacking me to protect your own intellectual vanity.
Last edited:
Isn' t that the fundamental problem, though? Any technology can be misused. And indeed, pretty much all problems _with_ technology come from its misuse. To what degree is a scientist responsible for that misuse?
Well, that's the problem.
Let's say you can cure most forms of cancer, today, with your CRISPR/CAS9 T-cell therapy. And let's say that you suspect that in 250 years, someone will use a very similar technique to create a clone army of almost invincible soldiers, and they will engage in a bloody war that kills millions. What's the ethical thing to do? Save millions today? Or suppress your treatment, let those millions die now and (potentially) save millions in 250 years?
I tend to hold them to these standards:
-Open and transparent reporting of the research and test results
-Reporting of any foreseen side effects/long term effects of the research
-Refusal to work on any research program that has only harmful potentials (i.e. bioweapons)
That's about all you can do.
Last edited:
OK let's go with that example.
Let's say we do the research and realize that CFC's are a problem. We develop an alternative refrigerant. It solves the ozone problem - but in 250 years it may cause a more toxic atmosphere, resulting in hundreds of deaths from chloramine poisoning. What's the right thing to do? Release the alternative, thus solving the problem now but putting people 250 years in the future at risk, or do nothing and let the ozone layer perish?
so you agree? thanks...
like a have stated and implied in other posts.
Once you decide to take control of human destiny you can not stop. There is no off ramp. You can't land your plane and just get off because you don't like the ride.
The whole reason for introducing the Chernobyl Disaster back a few pages, was to provide an example to support the "If you can't stop it, don't start it" wisdom.
As Doctor Suzuki famously stated "If you can't fix it then don't break it." the key being if you can't finish you task then don't start it.
Acknowledging the limitations of your capability is essential to making wise decisions.
Regards the CRIPR situation I actually thought of a funny example to put to you.
Say:
In the USA white supremacist league they develop editing technology to ensure the only skin color bred was white.
Simultaneously in Africa a Black Supremacist league develops editing technology to ensure the only skin color bred is black.
Soooo,
Mr USA white supremacist decides to have a illicit fling with Mrs Africa supremacist, and Mrs Africa falls pregnant. She will not have a pregnancy termination on strict ethical grounds.
The whole world finds out and waits 9 months, with baited breath:
What color will the child's skin be?
Sorry, I just realized I fudged on your question...
my answer can be summed up with the following:
The only solution to your question is that regardless of the consequences the human race must learn to master it's ability to determine it's future or become extinct trying.
I just asked you a question. Would it be moral to solve the CFC problem by introducing a product which is safe now, but in 250 years could kill hundreds? Or would it be more moral to not fix the ozone layer?
What is your answer?
Why is this even an issue to you, or to the world? The parents make the decision. If they can't decide, the mother has the final say.
There are big ethical issues out there. What parents do to their child's skin color is very close to the bottom of that list. Whether that same woman decides to get her child vaccinated is a much bigger deal from an ethical perspective, because that's a decision that DOES affect others.
That's not an answer.
You have been going on and on about all the bad decisions scientists have made. Here's your chance to make a better decision than them. What would you do? Release the new refrigerant or not?
Ethically the release of the second version of the gas is being done as an emergency reaction to what has become known as a serious failure of science. So ethically any cost of the subsequent gas is part of the release of the first gas.
One can only hope that the mess doesn't get messier.. for surely the second gas hasn't been thoroughly tested either...
Last edited:
so MR USA and MRS USA know the limitations of who they can have a reproductive relationship with?
There is no way that a CRIPR scientist can know that his editing is going to be compatible with other nations editing, including back yard editing... Not a hope in hell of being able to control the outcomes of edited mismatching... a proverbial nightmare of potentials.
I agree with your accountability standards.
QQ - what do you think of those standards in terms of science’s ethical responsibility?
I wouldn't have released the first gas to begin with. Evaporative cooling worked extremely well for thousands of years.
Ammonia based cooling has been around for a long time as well. I would have stuck to Ammonia based cooling and perfected that in the least before releasing an unknown or unknowable into the atmosphere. CFC and HCFC's have too many unknowable possibilities.
But yet again I dither...
Would I release another potentially more harmful gas or would I simply say enough and shut the entire industry down and use ammonia or evaporation cooling instead. hmmmm good question.. today, in a climate crisis free world, I would stop using these hybrid gasses immediately but unfortunately this is impossible given the Climate crisis and extreme heat being experienced and on it's way...by the time we switched to Ammonia or other more benign gasses we probably won't have any one around to use them...
Last edited:
I agree mostly also, however ,
The most pressing and relevant issue that this thread has highlighted is that
Scientists must take responsibility for their discoveries before they discover them.
Scientists must appreciate that it is not what they know or come to know that is most important, but what they do not know and can't know, that is.
Scientists must place sustainability, environmental symbiosis and recyclability as their highest ethical priority.
Environmental budgeting - what you take out must be replaced etc..
And for goodness sake ... work out how to get rid of these extra rads floating around in our biosphere.
for example:
If it isn't able to be recycled it must not be manufactured. Should be a law in every nation.
Just claiming biodegradability is insufficient with out considering that what biodegrades may lead to toxic outcomes any how.
Last edited:
of course and don't you think that the scientist of the day knew that in the future we would if we survived the risks they were taking?Remember ...we have the luxury of hind sight, now.
Last edited:
Right now at this very moment there are teams of scientists devoted to research and development of hybrid nuclear weapons.
Should they take responsibility for their results?
or should they pass the buck onto a politician?
Should they take responsibility for their results?
or should they pass the buck onto a politician?
billvon
Use Ammonia based cooling and hybrid gas cooling gas an example (circa : 1920's)
Circa : 1920's
According to reports the use of Ammonia based Air conditioning is already proved to be considerably more economical and efficient and lower energy ( CO2 ) cost.
http://ammonia21.com/articles/9087/what_about_ammonia_for_air_conditioning_
Use Ammonia based cooling and hybrid gas cooling gas an example (circa : 1920's)
- Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound that has beneficial attributes for living organism.
- It is cheaper and more cost effective than CFC or HCFC.
- Impacts are already known or can be known as found in nature.
- Hybrid manufactured gasses such as CFC and HCFC have no obvious benefit to organisms.
- Have unknown and unknowable impacts as they are not naturally found in the environment.
Circa : 1920's
- Logically which would be the most suitable for use as a refrigerant?
- Ethically which would have been the better choice?
- Economically which would have been the better choice?
- Why did the world choose to use the hybrid gasses instead of a local naturally occurring compound?
According to reports the use of Ammonia based Air conditioning is already proved to be considerably more economical and efficient and lower energy ( CO2 ) cost.
http://ammonia21.com/articles/9087/what_about_ammonia_for_air_conditioning_
Last edited: