Sciencetific Research
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Should it have no limits?</div> I posted a reply in the seperation of church and state thread about why I thought having idealogy affect scientific research was wrong, and someone refuted that the politicians personal beliefs will always affect their policies, so...
Science should have no limits and every possibility should be tested extensively. Looking through our history we can see how many incredible beneficial advances in science were discovered while doing research on another subject (penacillen, rubber, to name two). If a sector of the scientific community could be seperated from all other political and social affiliations and work completely independently and purely for the goal of testing every scientific end possibility, it would be an enourmous benefit to mankind. Being completely privatized would keep any harmful discoveries from being made public, so they could work on experiments that are normally deemed dangerous or "a danger to national security". Funding and support would no longer be an issue since they would not have to go to anyone for money or premission and instead be an entity in and of itself. Should there be limits on our science, if so when do the limits become stiffling?
Discuss.
Science should have no limits and every possibility should be tested extensively. Looking through our history we can see how many incredible beneficial advances in science were discovered while doing research on another subject (penacillen, rubber, to name two). If a sector of the scientific community could be seperated from all other political and social affiliations and work completely independently and purely for the goal of testing every scientific end possibility, it would be an enourmous benefit to mankind. Being completely privatized would keep any harmful discoveries from being made public, so they could work on experiments that are normally deemed dangerous or "a danger to national security". Funding and support would no longer be an issue since they would not have to go to anyone for money or premission and instead be an entity in and of itself. Should there be limits on our science, if so when do the limits become stiffling?
Discuss.
Comments
maybe there shold be limits so we dont come up with 'the next atom bomb'.
but then is it better to ignore it, or just cope with it?
Is scienctific research good? Yes. Is it helping or just making the problem worse? i dont know. Should it be unlimited? i dont think so. There are somethings that imo we shouldnt know. what are they? i dont know
The idea is that the people doing the research wouldn't be obliged to give up any of their reserach to anyone. Currently the reason so much research goes towards making weapons is because the researchers get a massive budget from the military and are either directly or indirectly controlled by the goverment. If the researches had no obligations to anyone it would be completely up to them what they disclosed and what they used their reserach to develop, and most scientists aren't into war and death.
but, scientists are only human. whos to say that they wont take over the world with some crazy inventions?
Given free reign, I think science could come up with some amazing things. We gave ourselves a decade to land on the moon; but what about a decade to cure cancer? If we put our minds to it, we could knock out diseases easily. Unfortunately, as I said, it's more profitiable to make you pay googobs for treatments and then die, than it is for you to pay once for a cure and have no more problems.
I believe things like nano-machines could _MANUALLY_ target bad cells, AIDs, cancer, virii, etc. Our immune system may be fooled, but humans can tell the difference between good cells and bad.
On the other hand, as mentioned, nano-machines could be used as a weapon along the same lines. Not good.
They could be powered through the skin non-invasively by batteries (technology which exists now)
Also, what do you guys think about stem cell research? We've found a new way to get stem cells, a less controversial way. Teeth.
The more we know and understand about our universe, the more possibilities are open to us. Some ask what good does the space agency do, since it soaks up money and average joe never sees anything come of it. Ah, but they do. There are many spinoffs from the research and lessons learned while in the space agency. IIRC teflon was developed by them, as was some other revolutionary materials. And that neat little pen that could write in zero g <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
No I don't like that idea at all and I am a scientist. Some of the most sick experiments in science came from free reign to research whatever. Many people remember a certain German doctor who analysed the brains of Jewish children...
Perhaps we should be less restrictive in some areas like in Genetic Engineering and some other facets. But things like medical research on new drugs should utterly not be allowed to do whatever they want.
Free reign to do anything you like with whatever you like just cant be good. There is a reason that their is a left wing and right wing in this world.
The left wing keeps us moving forward, and the right wing keeps the left in check so it doesnt run rampant.
And I personally always want to have my say and what scientists do and do not tinker with. So to say, here you go lads, knock yourself out doesnt sound clever to me.
I get the feeling that what this is really moving towards is the stem cell debate. The amount of deception and subterfuge that is involved in the push for the use of embryo's to be destroyed for research purposes has me really worried. It seems pretty clear to me that the people supporting it have absolutely no respect for honesty, they are so convinced of the rightness of their own cause that the means of getting to it doesnt seem to bother them.
This kind of scientific bigotry is of grave concern to me. Scientists are always pushing the edge. Whose to say we wont find that edge one day and go over it?
I notice that you said privitisation. That means money. Science will always be where the money is. And money corrupts. There seems to be a perfect being idea about scientists here that I also find worrying. They are not people with high and lofty ideas. They are just like the rest of us.
New concept to add to the fray, what if we were to have a scientific branch of goverment where the officials in charge would be elected and be part of the system of checks and balances presently applied to the other 3 branches.
Also, religion is one of the main benefactors of the slow progress of scientific studies and soon-to-be marvels.
It's kinda funny. The countries that endorse animal cloning reject our genetically modified crops. And some of the folks who think a fetus is not a human being argue that it is wrong to use them in stem cell research because the scientists are killing living things. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Science does need some checks, but those checks should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever take religion into account.
This anecdote is based on memory, so bear with me. An example comes to mind with a cyclotron (or something similar, cant remember exactly) in New York. Apparently it was going to be the most powerful in the world. A few days later, a report in the papers said something along the lines that this cyclotron would be able to create a black hole <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
It nearly killed the project.
So although science does need a bit more freedom, society needs to be less ignorant as well, in addition to moderation in research as well.
Otherwise we might be seeing experiments with twins like the nazis did in world war two. If you didnt know, I'll give you a hint. One doctor sewed twins together, joined by the back, just to see what it did. Depending on your point of view, the twins died an hour or two after the operation.
It's kinda funny. The countries that endorse animal cloning reject our genetically modified crops. And some of the folks who think a fetus is not a human being argue that it is wrong to use them in stem cell research because the scientists are killing living things. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Science does need some checks, but those checks should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever take religion into account. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like democracy is your problem there Kheras, and not religion.
_Creep basically makes the same point that Aegeri did, that if you let them do what they want you can have some horrific stuff going on.
This shows the great problem of any research: Science is not inherently good nor evil, once led to results, it can however be turned to evil use by anyone with access to the data, and so far, there has never been an example of a major scientific breakthrough being hidden for long amounts of time.
Such an observation can either lead into a luddistic view proclaiming that all scientific research should be stopped, or a fatalistic notion arguing that if every kind of scientific research is being misused anyway, one could just as well go ahead and conduct as much research as possible to reach at least some positive results - the negatives will follow inevitably, so why cry about spilled milk?
Both opinions can of course not be held up. Sciene offers on the one hand too great advantages not to use it, and on the other too big dangers to simply 'allow them in'.
Thus, we have to reach a point of consensus, which amounts in a certain control of scientific research by the society. These limits do however have to be based on possible dangers originating from a possible new research result - as far as those are forseeable -, <i>not</i> on purely ethic or religious motives. Both philosophy and religion were often enough used to curtail scientific research for subjective reasons that can not qualify as defense against possible dangers. A certain philosophy or religion can never be made the base of all of a societys actions (simply because no society will follow strictly one such), and thus, it can never be used to regulate scientific research, one of the possibly most fundamental actions a society can take.
This notion leads me, for example, to strongly oppose genfood, because the dangers of this are just not calculable enough yet to implement it into the public market, while I'm at least partitially open to embryonic research, as I, leaving my Christian upbringing behind for a second, can not see a comparably direct danger there.
<a href='http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/knowledge/' target='_blank'>http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003...3/31/knowledge/</a>