C1ay Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 That would not be an acceptable argument from a moral point of view, however, which is most of what the opposition is basing thier thougts on. Whether or not the research is going to be done does not make the research OK. Yep, and it's just that, a point of view, one that would have us believe that an effort to save lives or to improve the quality of life is itself evil because it passes some mythical line in the sand. It also reminds me of an old quote of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aki Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 How could science possibly be bad? It's the most important thing. I doubt we can live without science. Science is life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 forget science, is technology good or bad [more negatives than positives socially or vv]? i haven't seen the end of all of this yet and so i cannot really comment. one so called 'bad' act can lead to many so called 'good' acts and the reverse. the only thing that bothers me is people attempting to control one another. the rest is sound and fury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemo Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 I suppose true science could be described as the ever-closer observation of the world around us - I don't see a problem with observing the world around us. The problems arise through the method of observation. With regard to stem-cell research: if to-be parents were presented with a question similar to the organ-donor question on a driver's license asking them if a sample of their child's stem cells could be taken in the event of a stillbirth (it is disconcerting how many of these there still are), even just a few samples a month nation-wide would be scientifically valuable; without the moral questions that are currently being raised. I see great promise in science as a whole, but do not think it should be outside the purview of the general public that is the supposed benefactor of the research (i.e. Josef Mengele). So now I'm wondering how we would go about informing the public about science, the promise it holds and the risk that some research presents, without degenerating into a screaming match involving protesters of some kind. How do you have a thoughtful discussion with billions of people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.