3 ms·

So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research... for t

by jqm 12y ago

So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied? And that there should be a diverse (aka non-experts) panel to decide what scientists can research... for the good of humanity? How often liberal arts college propaganda seems to talk itself right back around into something resembling medieval theology. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on perspective I guess) it seems to never be quite competent enough to achieve it's objectives.... For the record, I believe in environmental concerns. I believe in social and economic justice. I look at history and see these best being addressed by science. Not "me too even though I haven't really taken the time to study the issue" opinions.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
"So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied?" Yes, I think some areas just shouldn't be studied. Yes, I know this goes against the commonly held beliefs that science should be a free-for-all, consequences be damned. A useful comparison may be with the medical profession, which since its early days has placed ethics at the core of what it does, such as with the Hippocratic Oath (along with its modernising revisions). Doctors have a responsibility to the patient first, and expanding their expertise second. With science as it stands today, the opposite is true. The priority is expanding expertise, even if its clear that damage will be done. I'd like research to be as free as possible, just within certain ethical bounds. Aside from weaponry, most of what we're doing today in science is child's play compared to what's coming soon. So that we can expand this discussion, tell me what you know about synthetic biology.
- jqm 12y ago
  How something is researched is a different topic than what is being researched. Lack of ethics or disregard for the safety of research subjects (Nazi experiments come to mind...) is not what I'm in favor of (and I doubt hardly anybody else is either). A researcher shouldn't be able to dump a tanker of oil in the ocean to "find out what happens"..... But saying "this topic is off limits and can not be inquired into by any means" is #1)realistically not going to happen at this point. #2)not provably desirable for humanity. #3)full of potential for political and economic abuse. Yes, things are going to change a lot and soon (re. synthetic biology... I majored in a biological science. Genetics, bio-chem, advanced biology etc. 20 years ago. I entered a different field. I don't claim to know much, but to your point, I think I do know what's coming). Yes, there will be tragedies (but also amazing benefits). Yes, people need to be as careful as they can, and they need monitoring. Yes, application of technology needs regulation. But attempting to force ignorance simply isn't a good idea, nor is it going to work. The likely outcome of that approach is application of more uninformed versions of technologies entailing more risk to everyone. The genie is not going back in the bottle. So we need to do our best to understand mechanism and outcomes, and thus tip the risk/reward ratio in a positive direction. My grandfather was an engineer in Los Alamos working on nuclear destruction devices. He died in his late 40's from cancer. I never met him. So I understand your point. But where I think we differ... I don't think they should have stopped nuclear research. I think they should have done more in fact and I still do. What I don't think they should have done was use that technology, half understood, with no long term plan for waste disposal, largely to build destructive devices. It's not research and understanding that kills us, but the reverse.

by jqm 12y ago

ZenoArrow 12y ago

"So you think certain areas just shouldn't be studied?" Yes, I think some areas just shouldn't be studied. Yes, I know this goes against the commonly held beliefs that science should be a free-for-all, consequences be damned. A useful comparison may be with the medical profession, which since its early days has placed ethics at the core of what it does, such as with the Hippocratic Oath (along with its modernising revisions). Doctors have a responsibility to the patient first, and expanding their expertise second. With science as it stands today, the opposite is true. The priority is expanding expertise, even if its clear that damage will be done. I'd like research to be as free as possible, just within certain ethical bounds. Aside from weaponry, most of what we're doing today in science is child's play compared to what's coming soon. So that we can expand this discussion, tell me what you know about synthetic biology.

jqm 12y ago
How something is researched is a different topic than what is being researched. Lack of ethics or disregard for the safety of research subjects (Nazi experiments come to mind...) is not what I'm in favor of (and I doubt hardly anybody else is either). A researcher shouldn't be able to dump a tanker of oil in the ocean to "find out what happens"..... But saying "this topic is off limits and can not be inquired into by any means" is #1)realistically not going to happen at this point. #2)not provably desirable for humanity. #3)full of potential for political and economic abuse. Yes, things are going to change a lot and soon (re. synthetic biology... I majored in a biological science. Genetics, bio-chem, advanced biology etc. 20 years ago. I entered a different field. I don't claim to know much, but to your point, I think I do know what's coming). Yes, there will be tragedies (but also amazing benefits). Yes, people need to be as careful as they can, and they need monitoring. Yes, application of technology needs regulation. But attempting to force ignorance simply isn't a good idea, nor is it going to work. The likely outcome of that approach is application of more uninformed versions of technologies entailing more risk to everyone. The genie is not going back in the bottle. So we need to do our best to understand mechanism and outcomes, and thus tip the risk/reward ratio in a positive direction. My grandfather was an engineer in Los Alamos working on nuclear destruction devices. He died in his late 40's from cancer. I never met him. So I understand your point. But where I think we differ... I don't think they should have stopped nuclear research. I think they should have done more in fact and I still do. What I don't think they should have done was use that technology, half understood, with no long term plan for waste disposal, largely to build destructive devices. It's not research and understanding that kills us, but the reverse.