- Paul Wolpe
- Atlanta, GA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Misunderstanding Ethics and the purpose of this talk
It is interesting to read the comments this talk has elicited. People project onto the talk their own fears or beliefs. The talk has one purpose, and I suppose it has achieved that: it is to get people debating and thinking about the ethics of biotechnology. That is why, nowhere in the talk, do I give my own opinion as to correct answers; I want the viewer to ask themselves the questions.
On the other hand, some of the claims in the comments are pretty surprising. I am involved in quite a few biotechnological projects, so the idea that I am anti-technology or a Luddite borders on the absurd. When Craig Venter first decided to create his minimal genome, he hired my Center at Penn to examine the ethical issues involved, and the two articles were published side by side in Science. So is Craig Venter a Luddite because he was concerned about the ethics of biotechnology?
Science and ethics must go hand in hand. When they don't, science has done unconscionable things. All good scientists understand this, which is why top scientists generally support bioethics, and believe in the importance of incorporating ethical reflection into science and science education. The purpose of bioethics is not to stop science, but to make sure that it is both performed ethically (the history of human subject experimentation is scandalous) and that society, and scientists, carefully consider the best use of scientific funds and the direction of scientific inquiry.
As far as what is done in one's private lab, that too must be constrained by ethical standards. Just because a lab is private does not mean we should allow it to manufacture a virulent virus, do cruel experiments on animals, or release an engineered organism into the ecosystem. Science is part of society, and has no special purchase from which to excuse itself from the ethical reflection or standards that the rest of society is subject to.
Jong Jong "Jingle Jangle" Baek
And I agree. Ethics is what grounds scientists to their feet of morality. As we have seen in the past, reason can be used for the unreasonable - or even for the atrocious - and we must always remain vigilant and keep "science" within the realm of con"science".
Despite that, however, we must also remain vigilant and keep ethics in check. While science has done unconscionable things, unethical ethics has stunted and hindered beneficial science. Logic must be used to reason - to decide what is reasonable - and prevent the dogmas of old Christianity from hindering future scientific progress. While I am a church-goer, I believe that faith or religion should not interfere in the matters of science (and to an extent, political legislation regarding science). The ethics of science, the ethics of reason, I believe, is a whole different sphere from religion. Reason must be kept within reason and I'd rather not have another Dark Ages.
We should not fear scientific progress, but rather steer it to the way as it is most beneficial to our society.
John Mihalko
Colin Crawley
Cornelius Worthington
Daniel Siqueira
When fire and meat were around it allowed us to develop smaller teeth, and possibly, larger CNS.
Was that good, or bad?
When knowledge and superstition about nature allowed us to domesticate plants and animals we made them into our tools. From silk to horses and dogs.
Was that good, or bad?
When smaller groups of people cooperated for longer periods of time it allowed us to develop cities and civilization
Was that good, or bad?
Now we are upgrading our knowledge about nature and it's allowing us to develop more efficient and sustainable tools. Processes and objectives barely dreamed by people in our own generation. BAD??
The history of human subject experimentation is NOT scandalous. It's not good, or bad, how about we think in terms of: "Was it helpful?", "Should we continue to do it?" and "Can we strip away what's unnecessarily harmful
and solve ethical problems to move towards our intended goals?"
Just think of all the medical trials done with countless volunteers at the edge of survival and the crossroads of human knowledge, striving to cure themselves and at the same time willing to put faith in humanity to better medicine for us all even if it costs him some time on the cosmos. We owe to the ones before us and the ones who'll follow us to be brave and move forward in the best way possible to know during our lifetime, anything less just won't cut it!
I was wowed by the presentation, such beautiful forms, such amazing processes and methodologies. Let's crack these problems. We'll synthesize a "kill switch" protein specific for GMOs, in some protein "information band" unused by natural DNA. Let's make sure no creature capable of conscience, however we define it, can live without possibility for "natural life cycles", however we define them. I want glow in the dark fish, and a "piganoid" liver, and energy producing algae, and neuron computers, and a helmet to mentally "be" with your loved one, like sharing an awaken dream yfy!
Mike Kurr
Scott Armstrong 50+
Groups of individuals are a completely different beast. The larger the organisation, the more eroded the humanity until unfeeling, inflexible rules become some kind of default setting.
Humanity's salvation lies in each imperfect, struggling being communicating with other individuals as much as possible.
PS. It's never "science" that does unconscionable things, it is always the wielders of science that do those things.
Sadish Dhakal
Emilita Bixie
Dale Wickizer
We fail to see what history has written about the fruit of human nature: Good and evil are within us all, with a bent toward the latter. The atrocities of Auschwitz started as ideas in the universities and scientific communities of Nazi Germany - the desire for the "master race", free from handicaps and physical imperfection; free from the "undesirables" (i.e., most of us). Those ideas ended in the massacre of 20 million people.
If the technology exists to recreate man in someone else's "image", to take away his autonomy using bionic implants, as was done with these other creatures, do you naively believe that power and control will go unused? You see the control experiments being done by DARPA. The natural conclusion of that work is the "perfect soldier", mere avatars under someone else's control. Wake up, people!!
Everyone talks about "ethics". In the absence of an absolute, transcendent being, who defines ethics and morality? Do we merely count noses in a vote? Does might make right? Or, as is usually the case, does it boil down to the almighty dollar, euro or yen and who gets richer?
We already kill human babies by the millions (50+ million since 1973 in the U.S.) mostly because of economic and life style reasons. (Pro-abortionists bring up rape and incest, but those are less than 2-3%.)
We have forgotten God, the source of ethics, the source of morality, justice and truth. We have sown the wind and are about to reap the whirlwind. God help us all!
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Scientific progress, our population has only been growing and so has our quality of life. We have ups and downs but you take away what science has given us and your life span would probably be about 30 years. The existence of democratic governments, which existed prior to Christianity. Ethics and the idea of a virtuous life which also existed prior to Christianity and were later adopted by many Christian thinkers. Utaltiarian and Kantian ethics are also major themes of discussion when it comes to modern day justice. Christian morals are just one segment of the ethical pie.
Babies and many others die world wide because the prevalent economic system we have adopted is capitalism, which allows for such things to happen. The problem is not that many capitalists have abandoned God, if you follow American politics you would notice that many of them claim that they are devoted followers.
Finally Nazism did not emerge in the universities. Most intellectuals were actually democratic socialists which Hitler despised. Most philosophies were framed to support the propaganda of the Nazi regime after Nazism rose to power. Nietzsche's idea of the superman for instance. But if you even read a grain of Nietzsche you would realize it's absurd that to think he would support a dictatorial regime. Heidegger supported Hitler but then again you put a gun to my head and I'll support anyone.
Emilita Bixie
Joshua Walker
K JAI
It is in my opinion 'completely unethical "
Oliver Milne
Arianna Johnson
Richard Shanks
Paige Wood
Ashley Vanbrabant
What about a questionair type of thing that is the same globally and is made globally, and controlled by a global organization that has members in every country that biotechnology is being practiced in.
I think ideally it should also have questions about the possible risks in 20 years, if a power hunger human were to be in control of this technology. And if the risks out whiegh the benifits then it should be denied.
as humans we are short term brilliant, long term stupid. we really should start taking this into acount.
Greg deJong
Cassandra Gluck
That being said, while I respect your opinion, I'd like to express my belief that science progresses not in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, but rather, in the hope of bettering humanity. I support stem cell research in all forms because sooner or later, science figures things out, and if there's a chance that this research can help prolong/improve the quality of even one human life, it is worth the time, arguments, and effort.
As hard as it is for me to say, it's better that you openly oppose stem cell research and try to fight it than resign yourself to the idea that you are powerless.
-Emily
Phil Dogor
I think work will greatly be suspended if laws are passed to stop the research on animals. Simply because researchers think that their work will lead them to something worthwhile or valuable does not mean that they have a right to do their work. They must consider the opinions of other people and find out what they think about the subject and whether or not they also think that it will benefit them as a society. If researchers were the only ones who chose the criteria that needed to be met I think that science would be a lot further along than it is right now. Society has stopped science from progressing as fast as it would have without considering ethical questions. It is the considerations of others that make scientists think whether what they are doing is right or wrong and the progress of science also influences their decision.
-Jonathan D.
Allany Mach
Personally, I would be more content about an experiment if the scientist at least thought of the possible consequences of their actions. Heartless experimentation with cold demeanors towards “feeling” is a one sided and biased way to operate. It is important to at l least hear both sides and try to not overly experiment beyond the public’s comfort zone. Yes, I do believe that in order to move on forward in the world, we must take a leap, but to just blindly leap off a cliff is foolish.
This whole “this is useless” aura I’m getting from you reeks of negativity. Sure, these scientists might be in it for the money, but whatever gets us to a new and better world is fine by me. Just because these motivations might be “impure” or “just,” opinions on what they do to make that dough must be discussed to prevent utter mindless and immoral research.
Sadok Kohen 10+
The problem is at the core of how we raise our society and how we shape our education. Our education leads us to do, and focuses on the doing and for most of the cases leaves the thinking as an elective experiment.
The power at hand is a power that is not even the concern of one country but of the whole human species and my belive is that until we can find a way to communicate with each other globally at the species level, forgetting all other political or economical boundaries we are not evolved enough to experiment with such a power.
How the Hermetical knowledge was transfered is the perfect example of how our educations should be structured. This would have allowed to have Plato's Philosopher Kings and Real Masters capable of critical thinking and having perspective.
If you want to read how the ancient Egypt approached education I have written about it in my post: Creating Masters in Love! How did we reverse education http://bit.ly/gvU7A8
Nick Edwards
For animal research, thanks to animal rights activists, the guidelines are often more strict than they are for human research. Every institution must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The experiments must be original, have a specific purpose (or future benefit to society), and must minimize or eliminate any animal suffering. Moreover, the researcher has to show that their research cannot be done without the use of animal testing.
There is an obvious necessity in asking questions about ethics in bioengineering. But it's important to point out that many of the examples in this talk are on the periphery of the ethics debate, not the norm. At least in the US, researchers are required to consider the ethical impacts of their experiments. More importantly, scientific research must first be approved by standards largely agreed upon by (the majority of) society.
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Andrea Kalfoglou
Andrea Kalfoglou
Billie Grace Lynn
Allan Zhou
Jay S
All too often, people assume these "mad scientists" are more common than they are. This is because these people are the ones that make the news because the experiments they do are newsworthy. Some of the most important experiments to modern science are incredibly boring and, thus, nobody hears about them until the practicality of the experiment is clear. However, a monkey with a prosthetic arm is interesting, but keeping a monkey in a cage and immobilizing its arm raises some ethical questions.
Sabin Muntean 30+
I hope my earlier post has not been misunderstood as a call to stop trying to reach an ethical consensus in bioengineering. By all means I think this is a goal worth working towards, however I am quite skeptical to what extent this can truly be achieved, to what extent people will come to agree with one another and accept the other's position when it comes to something as fundamental and with such implications like bioengineering, changing ourselves and species around us by our own will.
I appreciate your optimism, Paul, but I cannot help but believe that this issue will not be easily solved.
William Parker
Change the first letter of cool to describe that person!!
Why have glowing mice or chimpanzees? Just beacuse we can doesn't mean we should.
We're still finding new species, still exploring the oceans etc so are we ready to mess about this??
What is the point of crossing a buffalo with beef? Is US beef not good enough? Do we need this to feed 9bn people? Just beacuse it's cool is not enough to proceed.
Oliver Milne
S B
Several people have mentioned that ethics changes to the way that the world molds, decade to decade. I fully agree, but WE are the ones who change ethics. We need to remember, what we consider acceptable would be cruel to generations before us. And what others will do in the future, we will consider cruel. The cycle never stops and it won't.
Mat Ariel "Burrito" Aguilar
Just because we have a means to make mice glow or insert chips into the insects doesn't justify that we are allowed to do everything upon non-speaking animals. How do you know " they don't care whether they glow or not?" To what extent are we allowed to perform experiments on animals behind the "reasons" that it wasn't cruel or dangerous?
I understand that clinical experiments on animals are inevitable before approving new trial drugs for human uses. However, cross-sexed buffalo with cow? Human-chimpanzee hybrid? I'm not sure what greater good these experiments will bring to the humanity.
The "coolness" can't be the sole factor to allow such experiments.
k a
As Mat said above, what greater good will these experiments bring to humanity? Unless you want to make it easier to find mice in your house, I do not see why a glowing mouse will help end world hunger or cure cancer. If there is going to be experiments for such things, I believe that the funding (private or public) should go towards a cause that matters! Not because its fun or cool. Scientists gave up such juvenile experiments in high school. We're adults now, lets think like one.
Brent O
Nick Herson
So yes, there is a point to all this strange experimentation going on lately. Perhaps it may seem strange to give a fish the ability to glow in the dark, but such experiments are the precursors to being able to insert a gene into the human genome that would increase our thinking capacity, or changing a gene to prevent cancers, or deleting a gene that leads to Alzheimers. Making fish and other animals glow is just the building block towards all that is possible through manipulation DNA sequences.
Jesper Wille
However, the subject of the talk (and thank you for it Paul, excellent stuff!) is to question, specifically bioengineering - ethics being a method of designing the questions. So to investigate the concept of ethics (as I believe is Paul's purpose of this discussion, given its title), rather than trying to answer the ethical dilemmas (such as Sabin's), we should look at how those dilemmas were designed, or formulated, and why.
I believe that ethics is the process of finding out which questions need to be asked with regards to whichever topic is chosen - as such, it resembles the scientific process, which also is trying to formulate a question to which we want or need an answer, precisely *because* the answer is beyond our grasp to begin with.
(We should remember that a basic tenet of science is falsifiability, by the way)
The difference is that science is (or should be) a tool for the acquisition of knowledge, and ethics is (or should be) a tool for seeking wisdom - it should be obvious that I agree with Daniel in his definition of the twain.
By this token, ethics should be an evolving process, again just like science, and the questions we design should be posed in the search for a greater wisdom than whatever such we may posess at present. It is, in my opinion, a clear misunderstanding of ethics to think of it as a simple exchange of opinion, or that any ethical question that has us scrambling for an answer that eludes us somehow indicates that ethics "don't work" or are not important - the lesson of such questions depend entirely on how they were designed.
Daniel Kronovet
Calling someone a luddite because they choose not to engage in some activity shows an incredible lack of wisdom. We could even go back to Aristotelian ethics here: virtue exists in moderation. Bravery is virtuous, but cowardice and reckless bravado are not.
Madeline B.
Throughout Paul Wolpe’s discussion, I was simultaneously awed by the power of the human mind and its capacity for good (the most amazing thing was the creation of a robotic arm driven by brain waves) and horrified at the unnecessary steps that we seem to be taking (making bug-bots or glowing kittens, for instance?). I am a science person and I plan on majoring in biology as I go into college. I understand the curiosity and the temptation to meddle with the very structure of life. However, I don’t think that we as human beings should be tampering with such a delicate subject until we can understand its overarching effects on the future (I am a proponent of saving endangered and even extinct species through cloning, but it is unsettling that they still possess the mtDNA of other creatures. Where will we draw the line with speciation? This is especially prominent in my mind as we are taking part in the Barcode of Life Initiative, which bases its genetic information on DNA gathered from mitochondria.) . I hope that we will one day be able to reach a position in our development as a species where we can truly be stewards of our planet and only promote scientific endeavors for the good of all creatures.
Paul Wolpe
Ethics is, in my view, a conversation that evolves over time. So we have generally reached a consensus - internationally, by the way - that there are certain ethical principles that should guide human subjects experimentation. That does not mean noone disagrees, or some nations don't, but it is remarkable that in virtually all developed, scientific nations, we have a set of ethical standards for how we can experiment on human beings.
All societies condemn murder. Even Nazi Germany had laws against murder (ironically). Different societies have different standards of what murder is, and some are, in the view of most of the rest of the world, very misguided. But note: even those countries who violate our standards of murder CLAIM they don't. That is, by claiming that the person they framed actually committed murder, or convicting someone of a crime they did not do, or denying that the government did not assassinate that political opponent, they are implicitly ACCEPTING the general ethical standards of the world (or else they would just say "Yes, we assassinated him, and we believe that was the ethical thing to do.").
Ethics evolves over time, and we as a society, and as a world community, reach ethical consensus. As the world has gotten smaller, and communications faster and more ubiquitous, the global conversation about ethics has allowed more of a world consensus than was possible in the past. So the interesting thing about ethics today is that it is more universal than any time in history.
Sabin Muntean 30+
Take this great question on decision making that I discovered some time ago:
A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track. The train is coming, and you are just beside the track interchange. You can make the train change its course to the disused track and save most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the train go its way?
So, do you sacrifice the "wiser" kid playing on the disused track to save the others or the others instead for playing on an operational track? Or did they even know which is operational and which is not?
Not applied ethics like bioethics here, but still a quick thought experiment to show we are nowhere near a consensus.
And in my opinion the same applies to bioengineering. I didn't see it linked here so far, so I'll mention Gregory Stock's talk "to upgrade is human" (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/gregory_stock_to_upgrade_is_human.html).
I think he is totally right when he assumes that it is normal for us to want to upgrade and change, and that we should not kid ourselves into thinking that we can truly control this development, if a ban is instored in a certain place, it will be done elsewhere.
I'm afraid consensus will - if we ever happen to reach it - come by learning the hard way, and not short-term.
Paul Wolpe
The vast majority of ethical principles we all agree upon. The vast majority of cases we all agree upon. That we can construct cases where there is disagreement is not remarkable. It is what ethics is all about.
Micfi Jasan
But back to the biology. I agree with the introductory paragraphs stating that science and ethics should go hand-in-hand. We do have a consensus on some issues, and the ethics of those issues should always be followed. However, for some issues, such as stem-cell research, there is still enough of a polarization between the two sides that the only way to achieve progress in the field is to go against what a significant portion of the population would say is unethical. If other ethical issues surrounding stem-cell research arise, as there often is, then society's view on the topic will change.
Science relies on ethics to ensure the research receives enough public support. However, there are many cases where a consensus cannot be reached, and scientists and researchers in those cases will have to go with their instinct in order to make the best decision for them. There is some consensus, and it is greatly appreciated, but there are plenty of areas where no consensus can be reached, and those areas find their way into bioethics classrooms.
Harald Jezek 50+
In ethics, we are talking about conventions we might or might not agree upon, but which have no objective foundation. What is the source of our ethical principles ? Just because the majority of people agrees to an ethical principle, doesn't mean that it is right (there was a time when the majority of people believed the earth was flat and as we know, they were wrong).
If there wouldn't be any religion and no legal system, how would our ethics look like ?
Helen Hupe 30+
Also the basis of my ethics or BELIEF SYSTEM is the Golden Rule. Wouldn't all agree to that ?
Bryan F
You mention two foundations for our ethics: religion and a legal system. Really it comes down to religion, as a debate over creating laws is often an ethical debate with a religious foundation. For this reason, acts such as cloning are deemed illegal due to their “unethical” nature. The issue with religion as a foundation for ethics is that it is largely unchanging, while ethics constantly changes. Therefore what is changing is our interpretation of religion, which in effect alters our ethical beliefs. This can be very dangerous as religion can then be adapted to justify what we would see as unethical practices (such as slavery).
Scientific research and experimentation such as this then challenges our ethical boundaries and debate cannot be settled until enough people hold a particular belief long enough for it to be largely considered “right”. It is not necessarily an imposed belief, but one that develops in enough people over a large period of time that creates an ethical standard.
Loren Hansen
To Helen: I think that the Golden Rule is a moronic concept to follow involving morality. One of the major problems with it is not everyone has a positive morality. Would the golden rule apply to someone who is a masochist?
I also agree with Bryan in his belief that religion and most metaphysical beliefs can be twisted and warped to an individual’s whim. However, I would like to add that I believe that, over time (except in the case of Islam and most strains of Fundamentalism), most of the major religions and religious denominations that exist have become increasingly tolerant since the world has become increasingly tolerant as a necessity towards altruism. Also, I believe that “religion” is merely a strand of philosophy that has extraneous metaphysical beliefs attached to it in order to create an argument from authority as well.
I apologize for not responding to Johnson Tao. I would have if I understood your point. I also apologize for myself and my fellow students for resurrecting a dead thread. We are doing this for a bioethics class as an assignment, and are studying the different uses of stem cells. I am not sure if my teacher will allow me to do this, but I would gladly post the website where we usually post our opinions about various ethical issues.
Harald Jezek 50+
You said you disagree with me. On what exactly do you disagree and why ?
Noelie Smith
John Lurve
Indeed, a great deal of our modern understanding of ethics stems from modern religions. However, proper morals and ethics can stem from secular sources all the same, which demands an integral balance be found when allowing religion to become involved in science, particularly when imposing limits on the science we pursue. Considering this, I would argue that the field of biotechnology, a lack of religious ethics is not anything to fear. Basic human decency dictates the Golden Rule as much as Buddha or the Bible, so "slippery slopes" regarding a contested topic such as euthanasia becoming forced eugenics is unlikely. Atrocities committed by the likes of Nazi Germany were enacted by average people with religion in their hearts. Ethics should not be a catch all method of shoehorning religion into science, but deciding in what ways applying that science can benefit humanity the most.
Yubal Masalker 200+
I shall clearly say from the beginning that I completely support Paul Wolpe’s arguments against those raised by Sabin Muntean. I don’t say that the arguments by Sabin Muntean are false. What Sabin says is true, but it’s not sufficient to invalidate Paul Wolpe’s theme and arguments.
We don’t have to give up trying to reach common ethical basis just because we cannot reach such basis in ALL possible cases. Exactly like, we don't have to entirely give up trying arresting robbers as many as possible just because we cannot arrest all the robbers on earth. The example Sabin gives of children playing on rails is an extreme case where the decision is difficult. And even in that extreme case the debate is which choice is more moral. Nobody claims either choice would be totally immoral. The point is that either of them wouldn’t be fully moral. The only immoral thing would be if one would say, “I don’t care who would die on the rails”, or, “let them all die”. Because we all agree that we have moral obligation to do the best we can to save the children’s lives. This shows the common moral basis which we all have is much more significant than the moral controversy we face sometimes.
This means that Paul’s efforts in trying to reach certain ethical principles within the topic discussed are justified and most worthy. I also agree with Paul that since it’s a complex matter, it would take time until we will evolve through such debates toward broader common ethical basis. But certainly this does not mean we have to dump the all ethical foundation into trash box due to some difficulties arising from different points of view in some new or extreme cases
Dawud Miracle
I know well that we've had more than a decade of GMO in agriculture. Some of the staple ag products are all GMO if they're not organic. And yet we face a massive health crisis, for instance, in the U.S. I don't at all suggest that GMO ag is solely responsible - there's way too many factors. Yet, I believe it is fair to say that we don't actually know the extent of how modified soy or corn or canola affect our health. And now, with these crops having been in the wild for a long time, it would be very difficult to undo if we found GMO soy was dangerous to eat.
For me, I don't think it's possible to discuss ethics without including commerce. So often we see everything from companies right on down to individuals willing to bend, even break, agreed upon ethical principles for the all-might buck. I'm perfectly fine with science exploring new frontiers. What I don't trust at all is when companies decide to make profit off of things that could harm our lives. It happens every day in the pharmaceutical industry. Companies make and sell drugs that are rushed to market for profit rather than the betterment of life. How can we be so sure that playing around with the genome won't just be another method for large companies to make huge profits on technologies that we simply have no idea of the long-term consequences?
Funding clouds the clarity of research, technological advancement, corporate decision making and government oversight all the time. How can we possibly have a discussion on ethics and leave out financial gains? Seems moot otherwise.
zohla juan
YOURS TRULY
CAPTAIN ANONYMOUS!
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
What is your opinion of the fact that different ethical standards apply in different parts of the world? Does this lead to competition, in the same way that some countries use lower taxes to attract investment? If country A allows something that country B doesn't, what happens in a company from country B opens a lab in country A? Is that country subject to the ethical standards that prevail in it's home country?
Is a company from country A bound by the 'lower' standards of it's home country when doing business? Is it ethical for people from the country with the 'higher' standard to enjoy the benefits of research done somewhere more lax?
And what if it's not a company, but an individual? Can a nation ethically prevent it's own citizens from travelling overseas to do their research, even if that research is banned in his/her country?
Ultimately, all countries are in competition with each other to gain some advantage. Natural selection takes place in the world of business, even if the 'evolution' is designed by lawmakers and entrepreneurs. Without a global consensus, research is free to migrate to whichever regime supports the appropriate ethical standpoint - which is influenced by the desire for wealth and power.
Sadok Kohen 10+
It is pretty obvious to me that the human race as for today is not "mature" enough to play God... It is worse then letting a 2 year old play with a loaded gun...
Christy Goldhawk
Where the issue lies for me in this talk is the activities that have potential to impinge on the quality of life of those involved. We are striving in the areas of animal research and livestock (especially food animal) production to improve welfare and essentially meet give other sentient beings access to the 5 Freedoms. When we begin to create beings and manipulate physiology (especially in the case of organic robots), we are treading into areas where there is a likely logical reasons to assume it impinges upon those animals. I know this is a personal projection, but I wonder about the brain activity in emotional/cognitive regions of the brain in the mammals that were wired to have external control of movement.
Harald Jezek 50+
From an ethical point of view do we treat a mosquito equal to a dog ? I'd say we don't. Nobody cares whether you treat your mosquito ethical or not, but, dogs are almost on the same level as humans when it comes to ethics.Why does killing a monkey or a dog intuitively repels us, when killing a cow, chicken or pig leaves us completely cold ?
And, although, in our western culture, we hold some animals in very high esteem, in other cultures they are normal part of the food chain (e.g. dogs).
Also, what about livestock production, transport and slaughter. PETA would scream this area is full of ethical violations, yet, most of the meat eating population has apparently little problem with that.
Antwan Barks
Harold I see your point, but I hope all is well and that livestock production is irrevlant.
PETA is annoying and extremly distrubing so please do not mention them with sanity.
P.S. I am arguing with you just to argue with you.
Sammy Hagar
The argument is about ethics, and primarily what our idea of ethics really should be. I know that its a difficult thing to say, should we give animals the same respect we give people? It is difficult to say. I for one dont think we need glowing robot monkeys, but who's to say that makes it unethical. The deciding factor would be in how concious the animals are.
Paul Wolpe
It is also common to think that it is hard to reach ethical consensus, and that there are no or few established tools to do so. But ethicists (religious and secular) have been thinking about these issues for thousands of years, and most ethical issues eventually get resolved. Ethics does change over time, but eventually gets resolved again. In fact, the most common ethical fights happen when something that seems resolved by one generation or time is overturned by another (role of women, sexual mores, abortion, gay rights). But if you take gay rights as an example, American society has changed fundamentally in its attitude towards gay rights; even those who oppose gay marriage, no longer generally think gay people should be executed, jailed, or shunned, and most states have domestic partnership laws. That is a sea change in a long, historical view of homosexuallity, so of course there is going to be fights and debate about it. But note that it is in the process of being resolved. My children (both in college) grew up with a very different attitude towards gays and lesbians than my generation did.
So we will resolve some of these tough issues in biotechnology as well. But to answer your last point, Harald, no, it is not ethical to do an unethical experiment even to save lives. Ethics does not permit such a calculus, or else we would be sacrificing people right and left to save others.
Harald Jezek 50+
1) you look at ethics within the boundary of the US. Let's take the example of gay rights. As you said, the US came a long way in this area, but there are other countries that are probably more advanced than the US and others less. That shows us, that there are differences in how ethics are perceived and interpreted.
I think even within the US, you will find that that not everybody is equally open to gay rights.
2) In your last sentence you say "ethics don't permit such an calculus". Is that really so ? What about the topic of killing ? I think we agree that killing another person is unethical, however, we conduct wars (not always just ones) and kill people, and suddenly our concerns about ethics vanish.
Or take the issue of the death penalty ? Is it ethical to execute another human ? Is it possible to right a wrong doing another wrong ?
Another one: take torture, a heavily debated issue in the US. Is torture justified as a tool to obtain critical information that could save lives ?
So, it might seem, superficially, that there is consensus on ethical principles, but when we dig deeper, we find that these principles are not always that clear.
German Leonov
I have always supported the open source community and would rather work at minimum wage for the science that is for the people, than deal with industrial giants whose only intentions in science is to make sure they come out with a marketable product, or even worse - science that is not benefiting the people despite great breakthroughs being made (because it is "classified" and/or has "private investors"). We are arguing over the importance of ethics while there are much bigger concerns regarding the whole scientific system.
"Top" scientists posses great skills in "practical wisdom" and can see the limits themselves. We do not need to further create obstacles for scientists who work with the sole intention to benefit the society. I would rather worry more about how do we move science out of the private sector and perhaps invest in explaining scientific values (in general) to the bigger public and current/future scientists.
Somehow, religion is able to give us a much better understanding (framework) for defining the values (incl. the value of what is good, what is bad in science) than we, as a community, are able to come up with through our endless discussions that do not progress the world.
Helen Hupe 30+
William Parker
Harald Jezek 50+
Another point is, what does ethics mean ? It probably means different things to different people (clear example is the never ending discussion about abortion). So who should determine what is ethical and what is not ?
In the case of bio engineering, my main concern wouldn't even be the ethics issue, but that the technology can fall into the wrong hands and used for sinister, rather than benevolent purpose. Or we start playing around with something of which we don't really understand the long term implications.
Debra Smith 200+
Ethics always struggle in light of scientific exuberance. People tend to see it like parental interference. Just when we were having such a good time.......someone comes along and urges caution.
As a society we have certain obligations to each other. That includes acting prudently to avoid getting into unsolvable dilemmas- like underwater oil spills and nuclear reactor meltdowns where the people who pay the price are not the people who made the profit.
Harald Jezek 50+
The question is also at what point do ethical considerations become stronger than the desire for scientific progress (or vice versa) ? Example: let's assume that science comes up with a possible solution to AIDS. But to be really sure, one would have to conduct human experiments that are considered unethical. But if the experiments were done and the cure really worked, millions of people could be saved. Now, would it be correct to just overlook the ethical considerations and do the experiments, or is the correct thing to refer to ethical limitations and not go ahead with the experiments, which can lead to millions of deaths ?
Frankly, I don't have the answer and I hope I'm never in a position where I have to make this kind of decision.
Debra Smith 200+
No one is suggesting that we stop advancement in thorny areas but most people are saying that leaving it up to individuals to decide based on whether it 'can' be done is not the best way to move forward.
Debra Smith 200+
Thanks so much for drawing our attention to these important issues. I agree that we need to start a dialogue on the issues of ethics and not simply be swept along by what our most fertile minds can do or create.
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
German Leonov