sanctus Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 There are some philosophies which state that science is only for the sake of science, the applications are politics, that means the scientist is not responsible of the consequences of his discoveries.On the other side there are philosophies which state that everyone is responsible for his actions, therefore as well the scientists.What do you think? How far does our responsibility go? Quote
Tormod Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 I definitely think that scientists have a moral obligation to apply whatever skills they have for the betterment of humanity. Now, what that implies is difficult to say. There are some moral dilemmas here. Just before, and during, World War II, a lot of German scientists escaped to the US to avoid prosecution in Germany, or because they disagreed with the politics of the Hitler regime. Still, some of those scientists worked on the US nuclear program which made the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Did they consider that a lesser evil? If I make a discovery - let's say I find a way to make really thin carbon fibre which does not break and does not leave fragments when used. I invent it because it is marvellous to use in hot air balloons (say). But it turns out that a serial killer finds that it is a great tool for his trade because he can kill fast with an untraceable weapon. Am I then responsible for the death of his victims? Such issues are difficult to resolve (most are not as obvious as that one, of course). :) Quote
Stargazer Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 The discovery of the fire meant several possible applications, such as cooking, keeping wild animals away, or for warming whatever dwelling. It could also be used for destruction. Just as the knowledge about the atom: It can be used for energy production, or for atomic bombs. The mere knowledge about the inner workings of the atom is not dangerous, only the ways in which we use it. Quote
ant Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Yes...evolution...such a marvelous entity!! We have come so far so quickly...anything is possible! a century ago people would have laughed at the things we've explored!! Quote
Freethinker Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 This can be an extremely difficult issue to deal with. As SG1 points out, fire, as a scientific discovery, was and is used for both positive and negative. No matter the morals of one scientist, another could take the technology and use it for harm. Another issue is research. Not just application. Where do we draw the line in research. And not just things like animal testing. Even simple things like is it ethical to have a contol group to find out efficacy of a treatment. If there is a drug that stops heart desease, do we withhold it to find how many more die than the treated group? Quote
Stargazer Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 True, we also have to consider how science is done. We must develop new and improved medical treatments, for example, so animal testing is something I don't have a problem with really. It's much more problematic when it comes to testing drugs on humans. Still, unless we can simulate it, something needs to be done in other ways. Quote
sanctus Posted January 5, 2005 Author Report Posted January 5, 2005 The discovery of the fire meant several possible applications, such as cooking, keeping wild animals away, or for warming whatever dwelling. It could also be used for destruction. Just as the knowledge about the atom: It can be used for energy production, or for atomic bombs. The mere knowledge about the inner workings of the atom is not dangerous, only the ways in which we use it. Well, that's exactly my point, is scientist responsible for the way "politics" uses his discovery? If I find a way to travel to the stars, I know I revolution the earth. But there can be good or bad applications of my discovery, I'm I responsible for all of those applications? Shoul I ponder if the possible applications are more posistive or more negative and decide on that base what to do? Should I not publish my discovery at all, because I don't want the bad applications (but then if I found it sooner or later somebody else will find it as well....)? Quote
pgrmdave Posted January 10, 2005 Report Posted January 10, 2005 I think that a scientist is responsible for the applications of his discovery if he or she was aware of any negative implications and did nothing to help stop them, or if he or she was attempting to create something to be used in a negative manner. If someone is genuinely unaware of negative implications, then they cannot be held responsible. Quote
jazzn85 Posted January 10, 2005 Report Posted January 10, 2005 Is it possible to be so ignorant as to be "genuinely unaware of negative implications"? I'm sure with any creative thought about the scientist's discovery, the scientist in question could devise at least one negative use. And if they were aware of the negative implications, where is the line between doing nothing and just enough drawn? Do they have to site every possible outcome, regardless of the vastness of how their discovery can be aplied. Or can they be held accountable for future misuses of their discovery not forseable in the present situation? Also, the interpretation of negative changes from person to person. A weapon that we produce to fight terrorism might seem beneficial to some, but to others, a horrible branch of science. As I see it, Scientists cannot be held responsible in the least for their discoveries, unless they themselves are utilizing the discovery in an unlawful manner in their current place of residence. Ultimately, I believe that it isn't the individual's place to take responsibility for their personal discoveries. To detour scientists with threats of responsibility is to discourage learning and exploration of any kind. If serendipity yields a harmful product, why should the scientist be blamed for his unexpected result? If a scientist is however held responsible, what would be the result? would a case develope similar to a criminal case in which the scientist would be, at worst, sentenced to death? Does the issue of responsibility reflect a legislative realm or a personal one (I've been assuming legislative)? consider an exploring infant; He sees a flame and reaches out to touch it. Do we create a law saying it's illegal to explore potentially dangerous situations, and by breaking the law, the infant is prosecuted for his lack of responsibility (yah, i know it's a stretch, but i think it makes the point), or, are we discussing a personal responsibility, as in the infant is responsible for his hand and the risks he introduces, and if he gets burnt, thats the result of him having no choice but to accept responsibility (it is his hand that hurts)? I assume a legislative responsibility since you can't really change the personal aspect, or is there a different possibility I over looked? Quote
pgrmdave Posted January 10, 2005 Report Posted January 10, 2005 I assumed personal responsibility, not legislative, simply because legislation can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, while personal responsibility is a universal idea. I think that a scientist needs to understand what the implications of their discovery could be. If they know that this discovery can be used either to make grass seem a few shades greener, or wipe out an entire nation's population, then the scientist should do their best to not allow it to be used in a harmful manner. But in most cases, it is merely their responsibility to make others aware of the expected use of their discoveries, and, if possible, to try to prevent misuses. Quote
jazzn85 Posted January 11, 2005 Report Posted January 11, 2005 but what if he doesn't understand the implications but makes the discovery anyways? what or who would enforce higher responsibility or make sure the scientist is doing all he or she can to understand and prevent negative outcomes? Quote
sanctus Posted January 11, 2005 Author Report Posted January 11, 2005 I also thought about personal responsibility. This because when one discovers something he/she can only see the negative applications if he/she thinks it is a negative application. As you said finding a new arm to fight terrorism might be judged as a positive application by somebody, therefore he might publish his discovery. But maybe he sees as well that terrorists would be able to use it as well, therefore in his point of view a negative application, so he probabably wouldn't publish his discovery if he has something like a concept of personal responsibility. So we still didn't answer how far someone is responsible of the applications of his/hers discovery? I do not believe that a scientist can do everything just in the sake of science, just to the explore, one has as well to think about the consequences. Quote
Freethinker Posted January 11, 2005 Report Posted January 11, 2005 It would seem that the "implications" and "consequences" can not often be known until a much higher level of understanding is accomplished. e.g. superstrings. Someone has an idea pop into their heads about a potential TOE. At that initial thought, perhaps not a single negative consequence would pop up. They would be too busy trying to comprehend the approach to work on ancillary issues like all ultimate usages of the theory. And at this point who knows what ultimate results there may be? Some new weapon which at this point we can not even ruminate on yet? Can not even conceive of yet? Quote
sanctus Posted January 11, 2005 Author Report Posted January 11, 2005 If that is the case then you may publish it weith good conscience! But often you know what you are getting at and my question is what you have to do in this case. Quote
pgrmdave Posted January 14, 2005 Report Posted January 14, 2005 It is difficult sometimes to try and weigh good vs. bad outcomes. I think it would be better for science to try to publish regardless, but better for humanity to err on the side of caution. Quote
sanctus Posted January 15, 2005 Author Report Posted January 15, 2005 Are you serious? Science only for the sake of science? Even if it hard to weigh vs. bad you still have to not publish the reallay bad (unless you have no conscience) Quote
pgrmdave Posted January 17, 2005 Report Posted January 17, 2005 What I meant was that science could use all the data it can gather, but humanity is not ready for the bad to be published, so it is better for us to be more cautious than not. Quote
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.