Ethics and Science

[IceCold]

A paper I wrote for those interested:

_____________

How does the social context of scientific work affect the methods and findings of science?

Humanity has developed and set rules for itself through its progression through the ages. Laws were established to moderate interpersonal conduct within a society and to allow that society to function effectively. Our existence is dependent on morals that define our interactions with our environment and our peers. Morals are used to guide our society as to the correct course of action to take but morals may not be able to adapt to serve in all aspects of our society.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the quest to understand the world around us. Commonly accepted paradigms may not be adequate to understand or explain a particular phenomenon of nature. Galileo Galilee began investigating nature at a time when the Aristotelian view of the universe was dominant. The ancient Greek view had several base principles that would not be accepted in the modern doctrine. Aristotelian views held that the natural state of all objects was that of rest. Movement required a force to commence and sustain for if the force was relinquished, the object would slow to a stop. The Aristotelian universe was Geo-centric where the all extraterrestrial bodes orbited the earth. These views were firmly engrained in the mindset of the day. Galileo’s supported a hypothesized universe called the Copernican system in which the earth revolved around a stationary sun. The Catholic Church was vehemently contrary to this new idea and put Galileo on trial and forced him to renounce the Copernican system. Only in the recent 1980’s has the church officially accepted that the earth revolves around the sun.

The paradigm of the church prevented even the slightest omission that the Copernican system could be true. The inability of the church to accept new ideas retarded the scholarly advancement of astronomy. Tradition was the cause of the church’s inability to adapt to the changing ideas. Some cultures hold tradition in the highest importance of existence. The Japanese army trained in samurai combat during World War II even though they would not be using the sword in combat but rather the rifle. The honor and discipline taught through the samurai arts carried trough to the modern day battlefield where courage and determination are as deceive in a battle today as they were 500 years ago. However, the honor system needed to be adapted to serve the new age of warfare. The pure tradition is unsuited to modern combat and therefore could not be employed to every situation without change.

Ethics are as subjective as the traditions of world cultures. Different groups of people hold different ethics as they hold different traditions. The Japanese hold spiritual beliefs to a higher regard than the Americans therefore the values of the two societies would not be identical and they would react differently to different situations.

Science itself cannot be bound by the ethics of humanity for it is the pursuit of knowledge. The knowledge itself cannot cause harm to anyone. If the scientific community was limited by paradigm dependent ethics, there would be a drastic reduction in progress. The ethics could not change as fast as the technology and the advancement of our society. Many of the advancements in science were done outside the standard paradigm. Newtonian mechanics were earth shattering when they were employed. Einstein’s theories of relativity and the duality of light were quantum leaps in the fields that could not be governed by ethics for they could not adapt to such a radical new idea. Quantum mechanics is a modern paradigm breach in that modern ethics cannot understand its makeup any more that the relativity theories of the early 20th century.

Ethics may not be able to change fast enough but there may be times when science should have waited. Atomic theory was advancing rapidly in the late 19th century and the secrets of the proton, neutron, and electron were being revealed at remarkable speed. After the World War I, the sciences fell into a moderate rut in which scientific progress was slowed in all countries but one: Nazi Germany. The scientists there took knowledge of aerodynamics and rocketry to create the most powerful planes in the air for the most diabolical regime in the world. The Americans had something even more sinister up their sleeve, a program designed to create a weapon of unimaginable destructive power. The Manhattan project is the best modern example of a modern scientific push that removed all ethical and social limitations to inhibit the development of the atomic bomb. The physicists and engineers knew the weapon would exceed expectations in destructive yield as it was tested in the deserts of the American west. The development of this weapon defied man’s most ingrained code in that it allowed murder on a scale never before seen on the face of this planet.

Atomic physics itself is not destructive for it is just knowledge. The implementation of that knowledge is the cases for destruction. The atom bomb was an implication of the physics and not the physics itself. Ethics must be able to judge the application for the knowledge amassed though science. Weapons can be regulated but knowledge cannot.

Ethics are sometimes applied to the actual scientific research and not the development of derivative technologies. Ethical application to research science is difficult for it is impossible to tell which technologies will be used for which purpose. The Chinese invented gunpowder but did not implement firearms. They used the explosive power of the substance as a psychological attack and as a celebratory display. They had no intention of using this substance to start a revolution in weaponry that continues to the present day. Only the intervention of the Europeans created the firearm that has killed millions of individuals in its utilization. The Chinese employed their own ethics to the research but they never anticipated the killing power of their invention. Marie Curie did not anticipate her research into radioactive materials to be used in the manufacture of a new weapon that could destroy humanity nor did the other pioneering atomic physicists envision the ultimate resolution of their work. Ethics must be applied to the utilization of the knowledge attained by science not the knowledge itself.

[Raven]

Interesting, informative even, but not all that well written.

[Epsilon 5]

Change = progress

Tradition = stagnation

My thought about science.

[IceCold]

Unpolsihed, sorry

[Raven]

ItÔÇÖs not bad, I enjoyed reading it, but there is an unfortunate lack of structure. IÔÇÖm trying not to go into critique mode here, something about it being impolite to publicly dissect and state everything wrong with someoneÔÇÖs essay, but I think I should point out there is very little conclusion. After I read it I was left wondering what the point of the essay was, what you were trying to say.

[IceCold]

It is an essay written to analize the effects of ethics on science. It is not a persuasive essay, more like a long thought that questions the ways of knowing. The process is rather enjoyable for you question everything.

Anyway,

What do you all think about ethics and science? Should science be governed by ethics and if so, to what extent?

[ 10-04-2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ]

[Raven]

I personally donÔÇÖt hold with any ethics of any sort, but then many of you already knew that. That said, the results of scientific research should be used in a responsible manner with awareness of the consequences. There is nothing wrong with, say, germ warfare, but should anyone decide to employ it they should do so in as safe a manner as possible (the last thing we want is it to mutate and cause unintended destruction).

[Wolferz]

Spoken like a true Gammulan

[Guest MIKE113]

I think the words germ and warfare used together inherently implies unsafe use because it is indicriminate!

[Raven]

quote:

---

Spoken like a true Gammulan

---

Thank you darling.

quote:

---

I think the words germ and warfare used together inherently implies unsafe use because it is indicriminate!

---

Well yes, I admit that germ warfare is currently both dangerous and experimental (at least with anything engineered, nothing experimental or dangerous about sending anthrax in the mail), but it is not totally indiscriminate. The theory, as I understand it, is to engineer a disease that only lasts a given amount of time, thereby limiting both its ability to spread and the chance of a mutation. The way this is done is by limiting the number of generations the disease will live. A lot of people consider germ warfare to be unstable because it could mutate so that it no longer had a generation limit, but this threat is overly exaggerated. Considerable mutations in a disease are relatively uncommon, and the chance of any specific mutation is extremely low.

Oh, and safe use of germ warfare probably means having a cure for the disease, or at least a very good idea of how the disease works (something rather implicit in an engineered disease) so that a cure could be formulated.

[echo]

I don't know if I have a need for a better tomato, or building things that can destroy civilization, but if you are cloning animals or humans for the good of humanity I think it is fine. An examples would be replacement parts built to match. I think stem cell research or any other the research for spinal cord injurys are needed. I just don't think it is a good use of time manufacturing the best pepper, or crosses between carrots and spinach.

I can't say I truly understand Germ Warfare. I mean I know you usually need the virus to kill the virus, but almost seems more of a risk to store it.

The above essay has given me something to think about. Thanks