By it’s very nature, science is investigative. In order to be able to ensure all hypotheses and theories are considered and tested, pure science must have the option/requirement to test that which society may consider inappropriate. The purpose of science may well be corrupted if we ascribe moral constraints to it’s methods.
This leads me to the difference between ethics and morals. Is one a subset of the other or do they overlap? Is it possible to be ethical but immoral? This will require more thought but I do consider that in some cases, it may be necessary for science to be allowed to do what it needs to, at least in the consideration of hypotheses and theories, but to have an ethical oversight body to ensure that there is valid scientific justification/reasoning before moving to the testing phase.
It often amuses/perplexes me that it is possible for Good to triumph over Evil because in theory, Evil has the one thing that Good can never have – amorality. The capacity to do that which is abhorrent to Good is a core tenet of Evil … and in that circumstance, Evil should always triumph. I am certainly not equating Science with Evil … but there is a question in my mind that if Science is to be true to it’s nature, it is a requirement that it sometimes ponders that which would be considered Evil by most societies.
The delineation comes down to a line that Michael Crichton wrote in Jurassic Park (which I am probably going to get wrong) – “You were to busy asking if you could, that you forgot to ask if you should”. The pure scientist would never face that dilemma, but one who has to work in the real world would probably face that every time they develop a new theory.
There are ethics committees, dozens of them. But they don’t monitor science,they monitor scientists. It’s important to make the distinction.
Science is a way of looking at the world. It’s a tool, nothing more. You might as well debate the ethics or morality of a hammer simply because one can use it as a weapon.
Your questions are valid when applied to scientists because, after all, we are just human; with the same foibles and faults as everyone else. Or training has supplied us with a tool called science and used properly it is capable of wonderful things. Used improperly it can cause such misery.
Scientists should be monitored and prevented from causing harm. That much is obvious. The hard part comes when you ask; who is qualified to do so? Michael Crichton?
Totally agree … was discussing this further with K this morning and hit that same issue of ‘who is qualified to do so?’. Inevitably, any form of monitoring will have to be a committee (societal, professional or otherwise) which automatically spells its doom – rarely is anything ever effectively achieved by a committee!
Oh I don’t know. all we need is a committee to watch over the committes….wait a sec…do’h!