Forums - General Discussion - Ethics holds science back

Do you believe ethics slows scientific progress?

Yes 44 62.86%
 
No 17 24.29%
 
Maybe 7 10.00%
 
Total:68

I know it is not real life, but I think a good example of this is in the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine that I finally just watched. Better than I thought it would be. Anyways, I really had nothing to say in this thread until I watched the ending. All those secret experiments being done with defense money. But they made a lot of progress in the movie world by doing that. I do not approve of it in that way, but I think America is too strict on this matter. Mainly when it comes to stem cells.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Around the Network
MrBubbles said:
we should just go back to infecting poor people with lethal diseases just so we can see what happens eventhough we really have no "valid" scientific reason to be doing it

To make that group sterile was a reason.  Scientific explanation of making an entire group (poor people) or race sterile could be that they are too weak (stronger survive and the weak die).  I don't believe this should be applied to humans but some humans (ones on life support) don't seem to be doing too much with their lives, and without technology such as the breathing tube they would be dead already. 



Well while I might agree with you some what. There needs to be safeguards. For example I don't want to live in a society where people are forced into weird tests just to advance science. Example prisoners (jews) being forced into medical experiments which is something the Nazi's did and I am glad we got rid of. And as far as technological advancement. I'd say greed drives that as well as any mad scientist could ever dream of. And people look at the past at Nazi technological progress and forget that a lot of it failed and there were plenty of equal or greater advancements on the other side, for example RADAR.



The problem here is that everyone is making statements based on their definition of "ETHICAL".
There is nothing wrong with that as the purpose of the thread is to have an open debate.

The word goes far beyond science (although that is the basis of this thread).

The simple question one needs to ask is "How far should we go in the name science?"
The answer to that question is totally subjective.

The question can never be answered with big words and clever phrases.

Rather than look at the past regarding what the nazis did we must look at the world as it is today, because in many ways it is different.

If N.Korea (for example) made some unbelievable scientific gains in the future due to a lack of scientific ethics within that country, should other nations follow their example or be left behind?

No one can deny that ethics hold science back, that question has long been answered.
The question is, once again, "Should we totally abandon them and if not how far is too far in the name of science?"



Some pot head was talking about this stuff in my thread yesterday.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

Around the Network
amp316 said:
Some pot head was talking about this stuff in my thread yesterday.


I had to steal his thread idea from him!



justinian said:


The simple question one needs to ask is "How far should we go in the name science?"


You are making me want to change the title to the thread.  Do you mind if I borrow your insight?



My initial (gut) reaction was to say yes, but the more I think about it the more I realize that my initial reaction was wrong ...

Most fields of study have very little to learn from using unethical methods, and most that do tend to be able to find a work-around their unethical methods within a reasonable timeline (usually as the result of developing a greater understanding of what they are working with), and most of the ethical problems we see researches deal with are a result of accurately measuring, reporting and publishing data. For every "monkey butler" we gained from ethics being removed from science, we would likely lose hundreds of other advancements due to the resources wasted investigating scientific dead-ends do to the unethical reporting of false results. 



HappySqurriel said:

My initial (gut) reaction was to say yes, but the more I think about it the more I realize that my initial reaction was wrong ...

Most fields of study have very little to learn from using unethical methods, and most that do tend to be able to find a work-around their unethical methods within a reasonable timeline (usually as the result of developing a greater understanding of what they are working with), and most of the ethical problems we see researches deal with are a result of accurately measuring, reporting and publishing data. For every "monkey butler" we gained from ethics being removed from science, we would likely lose hundreds of other advancements due to the resources wasted investigating scientific dead-ends do to the unethical reporting of false results. 


Just trying to clarify your point.  You believe that false / incorrect data being used from illegitimate studies does the most harm in slowing progress?  Just reminds me of when good ole G.W. Bush appointed all industry insiders to important positions such as the EPA, Department of Agriculture, FDA, etc...  If anything he set back those departments a few years - decades of progress.