Science for Thought

Science Ethics

Science Ethics

I decided to carry on the discussion in the last post, but bring it closer to the present situation.

Governments have attempted to define the ethics of science. International bodies like UNESCO do the same. But, do these organizations control or even police the excesses of science?

That's a good question, and the answer is as complicated at international politics. The reason I say this is because right now there is a lot of discussion taking place about the ethics of climate change science.

Just to give you a historical perspective, less than five hundred years ago, science was considered evil by a corrupted religious organization and anyone who promoted freethinking and new experimental science was considered a heretic. Obviously, this extreme view of science is no longer in vogue, at least not in modern industrialized countries that are not controlled by a religion.

But, the issues of ethics still remain. Is it ethical to consider cloning a human? What about creating human-like androids? Would it make sense to genetically modify humans? How about doing a head transplant?

The Nazi's pushed ethics out the window when they did atrocious experiments on live human captives, mostly Jews, Gypsies and mentally and physically disabled children and young people. The civilized world as it exits today should never tolerate such abuses of human rights. What the Nazi's did were crimes against humanity.

Some science is only considered questionable, such as genetically modified food stocks like corn or wheat. The question in this case is whether genetically modified food is safe. This is the job of the WHO, the World Health Organization. They conduct extensive studies to determine the safety of genetically modified food.

The entire field of genetics is under scrutiny. Ever since science determined the entire human genome, questions arise about privacy and ethics about an individual's genetic data. This comes under the general question about the safety of our medical data. Will genetic data lead to discrimination in job hiring and lending?

Just recently, medical researchers have come up with a genetic modification of a fetus to eliminate a genetic heart problem. This method involved substituting a correct gene section for one that's incorrect. This would also keep the gene from being passed to future generations. The ethics involves using a fetus and the possible use of this idea to add or change features in a human subject. Something like this could lead to customizable and enhanced genetics.
Which leads to the bigger question about personal data safety. Technology, which is the byproduct of science, has created the ability to search vast databases, which has exposed our personal data to hackers. This is one of the most important issues of the modern era, one that has not been resolved.

Nanotechnology is another thorny ethics issue. When and if this technology is used in medicine, will the health organizations make sure that it isn't abused? It has the potential to be used militarily.

And what about skin imbedded chips. I just recently saw that some company is using this idea to regulate employee loyalty. The employee can get access to entry and computer digital locks as well as buy things using the imbedded chip. Is this ethical?

Not to be least, the ethics of science reporting is on the top of my list. The media has taken on itself the task of reporting unfolding science news. However, in many cases, the media uses it as titillating promotions for their news organizations. They forget that new scientific discoveries must be verified. Like most of the news they report, they are driven to bringing this type of news out first, and they do so without verifying sources. This to me is the worst ethical faux pa.

Thanks for reading.