How far does the responsibility of a scientific go?

[john_jrambo2000]

Can someone explain what terms like "good" and "bad" mean in a scientific discussion?

[pgrmdave]

I think we are using it to mean helpful or harmful to human life.

[john_jrambo2000]

Isn't that kind of an arbitrary definition? Science is supposed to be completely objective, right?

[pgrmdave]

That's what this thread is about :hihi:

[jazzn85]

whetherit is "good" or "bad", whether we consult our conscience or not, who are we, or any other scientist, to determine if a certain publication will be beneficial to society or not? I don't believe the any individual should be able to speak out for society's overall well being. If they are purposely introducing a dangerous concept into society with intent to cause damage, then they should be stopped, but otherwise i think society has the right to know. And even if the original aplication or concept of the discovery appears malignant at first glance, some other intelligent being might change the world by creatively putting the discovery to "good" use. by not networking with other scientists and sharing knowledge, we are taking steps backward.

[sanctus]

What I meant with good or bad was subjective: if a scientist thinks something is good/bad in his worldview. I agree there is no universal and objective definition of good and bad.

So yeah, if someone has the intent to do damage he has to be stopped, but what when someone can see that with his discovery damage can be done but he doesn't want to do it (but someone else might)?

[Fishteacher73]

There is no responibilty involved with truth.

 

Aplication of this truth may be another matter.

[sanctus]

Yes, but if you publish th truth you found, someone might aplicate and you become responsible. If you keep the truth for yourself then your post has a meaning, but if you publish it then there is responsibilty.