Journal Daniel Dvorkin's Journal: Who will rid us of these troublesome scientists? 6
http://the-scientist.com/2011/11/16/opinion-the-dark-side-of-science/
The author seems to think we live in a world of wild, unregulated research in which unlimited time and money are available for latter-day Frankensteins to create monstrosities in their labs, hidden from public view until the horror is unleashed. In reality, the opposite is true. The primary ethical concern in biomedical science is with curing disease, saving lives, and reducing suffering -- and progress toward these goals is increasingly hindered by philosophers, theologians, and politicians who inject themselves into a process they refuse to understand.
I can't help but wonder if their remote ancestors during the Paleolithic were rubbing their chins and muttering about the dangers of this new flint-chipping technology. Of course, once the hand axe was established as part of everyday life, they were happy enough to use it, all the while warning that tying a smaller, sharper piece of flint to the end of a stick was Going Too Far
philosopher, deconstruct thyself (Score:2)
I'm curious as to whether the author is willing to apply her arguments to herself. If a politician uses the contents of the article as justification for shutting down, say, a useful line of infectious disease research (a consequence which I'd say is certainly foreseeable) does the person who wrote those words bear responsibility? Should Dr. Douglas have censored herself to prevent such an outcome? Or do only scientists have the responsibility to withhold dangerous information, with those who observe and
Two different things? (Score:1)
Disclaimer: this is my opinion, so add "I think that" to every statement you think necessary.
First thing:
The impression I got from the article is that while the author is worried about the negative uses of discoveries, he doesn't explain why the scientists who discover them should be responsible.
We can't expect to close our eyes over knowledge just because it can be used negatively. Those with negative intent are likely to have the same tools available to get to that knowledge than the good willed scientist
History (Score:3)
The primary ethical concern in biomedical science is with curing disease, saving lives, and reducing suffering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation [wikipedia.org]
Although I think the author was thinking more of Monsanto Frankenfood and the Manhattan Project. Out of any group of ten people, you'll find one who's unethical. Any group of a hundred people will have a sociopath who doesn't give a rat's ass about anything or anyone -- even a hundred physicians or scientists. It's up to the other 99 to keep a rein on the one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well now, let's think about how research is funded, circa 2012. There's research the government funds, which in the new Age of Austerity is endangered, and then there's research done by corporations.
I don't care how well-meaning a scientist is, the day he goes to work for a corporation, his focus is on increasing profits, increasing shareholder value.
When you're in the pharmaceutical business, "curing disease" is the last thing you want to do, because a cured p
Re: (Score:3)
Any group of a hundred people will have a sociopath who doesn't give a rat's ass about anything or anyone -- even a hundred physicians or scientists. It's up to the other 99 to keep a rein on the one.
Indeed. And largely as a result of revulsion at things like the Tuskegee experiment and Mengele's psychosis, modern medical science has a very strict and largely effective code of ethics, and systems to enforce that code. IOW, we already are keeping the reins on, and one of the (many) things about the article that really bugs me is the way the author pretends that we're operating in a moral vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
one of the (many) things about the article that really bugs me is the way the author pretends that we're operating in a moral vacuum.
I'm past annoyance at reporters' ignorance, especially about science, which they seem most ignorant about. I gave up on reporters decades ago.